The difference between ���example��� and ���test��� is trivial, except that Smalltalk already uses ���example��� for, well, examples.�� Sample code that is intended to be read and imitated, not run for testing.

The difference between ���expect��� and ���assert��� is that ���expect��� asserts what to expect while ���assert��� asserts what to expect.�� I hope that is clear. ��

A ���rich expectation language��� doesn���t strike me as a virtue.�� It has been a long time since I regarded ���rich formatting languages��� like Fortran or Common Lisp have as a good idea.�� Give me the basic building blocks I can freely combine using my existing programming language.�� Indeed, that was one of the great merits of sUnit: if you understand Smalltalk you understand the test cases without having to learn a whole ���nother ���rich language���.

As for the logging, there are two fairly clear issues.�� Nothing stops you constructing such logs in Smalltalk.�� We could add a suitable ���self log: text��� message to sUnit, which would make localisation easier.�� We could use pragmas.�� But the second point is that nothing ensuresthat such messages are true or accurate.�� For example, #pop DOESN���T remove the last item added to a stack, and what���s more it shouldn���t.�� It removes the most recently added REMAINING item, which is not at all the same thing.��

As for ���subject���, just as test cases normally check mutual consistency of multiple methods, so it is not unusual for a test case to relate to multiple objects.�� For example, to test the #copy method of some class, I might make an instance, copy it, change one of the copies, and check that the other did not change.�� Which one is *the* subject?��

I like a programming language that makes me think, but not one that tries to tell me how to think.�� Comparing RSpec with sUnit, I feel that RSpec is trying to canalise my thinking, while sUnit offers me possibilities.�� Above all, sUnit lets me extend it without drama. ��