[rspec-users] != again
mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Sun Jun 1 22:13:46 EDT 2008
On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Hennemeyer wrote:
>> I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
>> ~ ... 'problem'.
>> It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've
>> done some
>> benchmarking to see if it's really that slow.
>> A direct comparison of
>> running '1.should == 1'
>> with the unmodified rspec source against the rspec-version with
>> source inspect
>> shows that the latter is 7 times slower ... :(
>> But benchmarks with '1.should == 1' inside a real example file are
>> showing 'only'
>> an overall speed decrease of 15% to 50%. That is still bad but
>> having lots of people
>> consider the passing of '1.should != 1' an rspec bug is bad too.
> RSpec is already getting dinged for being slower than test/unit.
> Making it run any slower than it already does is a deal breaker for
Maybe using autoloading instead of requiring would help the situation?
It seems perfectly reasonable that rspec is bigger than test/unit:
Test::Unit doesn't have a mocking framework, and so on. On the other
hand, if no one uses (rspec's) mocking framework, should rspec have
the code in place anyway?
Anyway - I've never found it to be too slow. Has anyone done
benchmarks on it?
>> Here is the benchmarking script:
>> And the code is at branch 'inspect' in:
>> There are examples for should and should_not != and !~ and i will
>> definitely work on performance if you not totally reject this whole
> If you can get the performance up to or better than current, I'm all
> for it.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users