On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 01:59 +0900, pat eyler wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck / gmail.com> wrote:
> > I must admit to being a great fan of RSpec, although the pace of API
> > changes has thrown me off for now, but I'm not sure this path is the
> > best. I did actually think about it at first. The strength of Test::Unit
> > is its simple syntax: just remember #setup, #teardown, and #test_*. I'd
> > like to add the same simplicity to any new benchmarking system. I'll
> > give it some more thought :)
> 
> Whichever way you go, please do consider configurable (and
> extensible) additons like rehearsals and statistics.
> 
> 
> >
> > Any idea for a name? "benchmark" is unfortunately already taken...
> >
> 
> what about BenchBench (in a play on "Benchmarkers' Tool
> Bench")

I'm not sure... the other guy[1] suggested BenchUnit, which I think
reads well, but I not sure how descriptive it is.


Cheers,
Daniel


 . http://djberg96.livejournal.com/52734.html