For some background on who's using mock objects and why, check out Martin Fowler's updated Mocks Aren't Stubs. There are some clear advantages to both the "classical" and "mockist" model. I appreciated his eloquent comparison between the two, and it seems to fairly represent both mindsets. I think I have a better understanding of when to turn to mock objects. And there are some interesting corollaries to my own work in managing states and expectations in state-based tests, which I someday hope I can write down. (I'm just trying to get back in the habit of writing at all first...)

But mostly I'm writing to say "Yes!" and "Thank you!" and that I very much agree with his wrapup: I really like the fact that while writing the test you focus on the result of the behavior, not how it's done. A mockist is constantly thinking about how the SUT is going to be implemented in order to write the expectations.

Of course, I suppose I'm more focused on acceptance tests at the moment, so looking under the hood feels more wrong than usual. I'll grant that there's a real place for mocking in unit testing. I just think it's smaller than some do, and I'm oddly heartened that it's not just me. :)