[TIP] A rare philosophical thought

C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Sun Aug 3 15:11:38 PDT 2008

-> >  ...and I have no objection to unittest remaining in the stdlib.  I don't
-> >  know that anyone does.
-> You called it evil, with caps and exclamation marks.  I took it as a
-> mandate to kill.  Clearly you believe there's a possibility for
-> redemption.

There's simply no way such a backwards incompatibility would be
introduced into Python.  Were it a perfect world, I think something
better than unittest would magically replace unittest and everyone's
code would be automatically rewritten to use it, but... that's not
going to happen :)

I think having unittest as the only "standard" module in the library is
bad, because it is difficult to understand and use if you are new to the
concept of testing, AND because there are alternatives that are
demonstrably viable.

C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list