There are objects that demand to be interacted with; there are objects that allow only certain predefined interactions; there are objects that allow any interaction and record them all for later inspection; and there are objects that are simple implementations of interfaces whose "real" implementation is more complex. Each of these object types exists in practice, and each is clearly an example of some larger category.
One group of people says "these should all be called mocks". Another group says "these are mocks, stubs, spies, and fakes, respectively, and collectively these are called test doubles". You can prefer the simplicity of calling them all "mocks" (simplicity is nice) but that leaves you with no way to distinguish between the types.
These categories seem like hair-splitting if you've written relatively few tests using test doubles. Once you've written a few thousand, you start to wish for even finer-grained distinctions. This is how basically everything works as you get deeper into the details: you need words for the fine-grained distinctions.
As far as I know, there has never been a competing set of terms. The only major positions are "we should use [the words I mentioned above]", which is mostly favored by those who have used a lot of doubles; and "we should not use separate words at all", mostly favored by those who haven't used a lot of doubles.
One group of people says "these should all be called mocks". Another group says "these are mocks, stubs, spies, and fakes, respectively, and collectively these are called test doubles". You can prefer the simplicity of calling them all "mocks" (simplicity is nice) but that leaves you with no way to distinguish between the types.
These categories seem like hair-splitting if you've written relatively few tests using test doubles. Once you've written a few thousand, you start to wish for even finer-grained distinctions. This is how basically everything works as you get deeper into the details: you need words for the fine-grained distinctions.
As far as I know, there has never been a competing set of terms. The only major positions are "we should use [the words I mentioned above]", which is mostly favored by those who have used a lot of doubles; and "we should not use separate words at all", mostly favored by those who haven't used a lot of doubles.