Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> ... >> +https://github.com/ThrowTheSwitch/Unity[Unity],?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,? >> +https://github.com/siu/minunit[minunit],?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,? >> +https://cunit.sourceforge.net/[CUnit],?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,? >> +https://www.kindahl.net/mytap/doc/index.html[MyTAP],[lime-background]#True#,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,? >> +|===== > > This table is a little hard to read. Do you have your patch on GitHub or > somewhere else where this table is rendered with HTML? Great suggestion (veiled in a question). > It would help to explain each of the answers that are filled in > with the word "Partial", to better understand why it is the case. I > suspect this might get a little verbose, in which case I suggest just > giving each framework its own heading. > > The column names here are slightly different from the headings used > under "Desired features"; I suggest making them the same. > > Also, how about grouping some of these together? For example "Diagnostic > output" and "Coverage reports" feel like they could be grouped under > "Output formats". Here's one way to group these: > > 1. Output formats > > TAP support > Diagnostic output > Coverage reports > > 2. Cost of adoption > > Vendorable / ubiquitous > Maintainable / extensible > Major platform support > > 3. Performance flexibility > > Parallel execution > Lazy test planning > Runtime-skippable tests > Scheduling / re-running > > 4. Developer experience > > Mocks > Signal & exception handling > > I can think of some other metrics to add to the comparison, namely: > > 1. Age (how old is the framework) > 2. Size in KLOC (thousands of lines of code) > 3. Adoption rate (which notable C projects already use this framework?) > 4. Project health (how active are its developers?) > > I think for 3 and 4, we could probably mine some data out of GitHub > itself. Great additions (if we are mere users do we care much about #2, though?).
