[TIP] A rare philosophical thought

[C. Titus Brown]

-> I know I am not one of the more hard core developers in this
-> conversation (I am a mining professional), but . .
-> Right now, IronPython runs unittest fine.  I work for folks that
-> demand use of the dot net framework.  IronPython is as close to that
-> as I can get without losing the Pythony goodness we all know and love.
->  Until nose (and coverage tools like figleaf) are available for
-> IronPython (correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a major yank to use them
-> with that implementation of the language now), unittest is it.
-> I'm was never keen on the whole OO or bust philosophy of Java and C#
-> myself, but IronPython is written in C#, so folks using that
-> implementation of Python *might* (I'm not saying Michael is) be biased
-> toward that approach.
-> The IronPython tail definitely shouldn't be wagging the CPython dog.
-> I guess it's possible to stick with an older version (of unittest) if
-> unittest were yanked from Python 2.4 today (I know this is
-> impossible).  The code for unittest is still in pure Python.

Were a new unit testing system added to the stdlib, it would have to be
available in or compatible with the Other Pythons, of course.  (nose and
py.test are both written in Python, incidentally.)

...and I have no objection to unittest remaining in the stdlib.  I don't
know that anyone does.

-> OK - I've talked myself into a solution:
-> I'm going to store a gold plated usb stick with the code for unittest
-> in a deep underground bunker in an undisclosed location so that I will
-> never be without my unittest for IronPython . . . You can try to kill
-> it, Dr. Brown, but I will keep it here forever . . . Bwahahahaha . . .
-> (scary music)
-> Apologies for trolling, lack of experience, exaggerated professional
-> pragmatism, and general insanity.
-> 2 more cents.

:)  I'll credit you with one full cent and one half-baked one.

--titus