The IDE should be able to infer the class name, method name, and supply a very narrow list of potential types for the SayHello() method (based upon the symbols used on the 'result' variable) that the user can choose between.
Showing people that Assert.IsNotNull() passes on a result from the 'new' operator (which will always be true, and the IDE should have inspected and warned you as such like IntelliJ/ReSharper does) not only shows people the wrong way to think about TDD, but
is a poor way to sell these new feature sets.
It's disappointing to see Microsoft going through the motions of attempting to emulate ReSharper's feature set as a checklist, rather than understanding the intention and innovating a solution based upon the root problem. As least the extensibility improvements
should help the next version of ReSharper integrate more deeply without disruption from VS service packs.
can we see how to use the API-level aspects of this framework? preferrably in a test-driven fashion? this is what I really need to see to compare this against the Rails style of development. pointing and clicking all over the UI doesn't really do it for
me, I'm a keyboard-oriented person.
I really love the 10-4 videos, especially the ones that JC does. Keep up the good work!