On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:

>
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 09:17 , Dave Thomas wrote:
>
>> Just what was wrong with Test::Unit? Sure, it was slightly bloated.  
>> But it seemed to work.
>
> Saying Test::Unit was slightly bloated is like saying RDoc/ri is an  
> easy and fun package to maintain. You gave up RDoc/ri because you  
> didn't want to maintain it anymore and Nathaniel did the same.

Actually, I stopped because I didn't have the time, and it had served  
it's purpose--it encouraged people to maintain documentation in the  
source. I was hoping for years that a genuinely new version come along  
and obsolete the old.


> I'm trying my best to actively combat this bloat and get things back  
> to the lithe elegance that I fell in love with back in 2000. The sad  
> thing is, every single example above was true back in 2000... we've  
> gone 8 years and still haven't had a serious overhaul on stdlib. The  
> fact that there is no lib/deprecate.rb should be evidence enough. I  
> love ruby, but I worry that the weight of the bloat is pulling  
> itself down.

I agree 100% with your motives. As I mentioned in the other thread,  
I'm just concerned that minitest pretends to be Test::Unit, rather  
than being it's own framework with its own opinions. I worry that  
having it accessed vid "require 'test/unit'" will only confuse people,  
and further muddy folks' view of the libraries. I also feel that the  
Mini namespace is somewhat misleading, and would encourage you to  
swicth to MiniTest, so you could then have MiniTest::Unit,  
MiniTest::Spec, and so on.


Cheers


Dave