Should I practice “mockist” or “classical” TDD?

Question

I\'ve read (and re-read) Martin Fowler\'s Mocks Aren\'t Stubs. In it, he defines two different approaches to TDD: \"Classical\" and \"Mockist\". He attempts to answer the

Answer 1

I don't think you need to choose one over the other. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and both are tools for your toolbox. "Mockist" tdd makes you a bit more flexible in what you can test while classical TDD makes your tests a bit less brittle because they tend to look more at the input/vs output instead of looking at the actual implementation. When doing mockist unit testing I seem to have more tests break when changing the implementation.

I try to use classical tdd whenever possible (although i often use a mocking framework to set up the stubs quickly). Sometimes I notice I start testing too much at one time or i need too many objects to set up a test. That's when mockist testing can often help you set up smaller tests.

This is all quite abstract so I hope i make sense