RE: Generating C# from Java (Was: fit, nfit, et al?)

John,

> Two points here. First, allowing the syntax for addressing the fixture
> to vary makes customer documentation more difficult. It also makes
> global acceptance tests more difficult: I would have to edit the .html
> documents to fit my port (which kind of subverts the purpose of a set
> of universal acceptance tests, doesn't it?) It also makes it more 
> difficult
> for projects like Fitnesse where you might very well have subprojects
> in different languages on the same server with the same set of 
> non-technical
> customers.

I don't know about that. If I port a program from one environment to 
another, I may give it a different name in the new environment.

I agree that it's inconvenient for those working on global acceptance
tests if the naming conventions in Java are java-like, those in C#
are C#-like, etc. but I think the needs of the users on each platform
are of greater importance. 

Of course, one way to avoid this would be to not express implementation-
specific information in the naming convention. It was the idea that I
might have to introduce the foreign $ convention in naming C# inner
classes that got me commenting on this. Maybe we don't want that
information to go into these names at all.

Charlie Poole
[email protected]
http://www.pooleconsulting.com
http://www.charliepoole.org