emitter vs minitest

Minitest provides a complete suite of testing facilities supporting TDD, BDD, mocking, and benchmarking. "I had a class with Jim Weirich on testing last week and we were allowed to choose our testing frameworks. Kirk Haines and I were paired up and we cracked open the code for a few test frameworks... I MUST say that minitest is *very* readable / understandable compared to the 'other two' options we looked at. Nicely done and thank you for helping us keep our mental sanity." -- Wayne E. Seguin minitest/test is a small and incredibly fast unit testing framework. It provides a rich set of assertions to make your tests clean and readable. minitest/spec is a functionally complete spec engine. It hooks onto minitest/test and seamlessly bridges test assertions over to spec expectations. minitest/benchmark is an awesome way to assert the performance of your algorithms in a repeatable manner. Now you can assert that your newb co-worker doesn't replace your linear algorithm with an exponential one! minitest/mock by Steven Baker, is a beautifully tiny mock (and stub) object framework. minitest/pride shows pride in testing and adds coloring to your test output. I guess it is an example of how to write IO pipes too. :P minitest/test is meant to have a clean implementation for language implementors that need a minimal set of methods to bootstrap a working test suite. For example, there is no magic involved for test-case discovery. "Again, I can't praise enough the idea of a testing/specing framework that I can actually read in full in one sitting!" -- Piotr Szotkowski Comparing to rspec: rspec is a testing DSL. minitest is ruby. -- Adam Hawkins, "Bow Before MiniTest" minitest doesn't reinvent anything that ruby already provides, like: classes, modules, inheritance, methods. This means you only have to learn ruby to use minitest and all of your regular OO practices like extract-method refactorings still apply.

A framework for modelling the impact of real-world entities.