Now that you have done so, let me try to explain my own thinking about this.
Type Mock has the reputation of supporting unmaintainable practices. You can argue if this reputation is accurate or not, but it is there. In fact, from Type Mock's own homepage:
Saves time by eliminating code refactoring and rewriting just to make it testable
Here is the deal, I don't think that you should eliminate code refactoring. I think that avoiding dealing with technical debt is a losing proposition in the long term.
Certainly Type Mock enables me to ignore highly coupled design and still be able to create tests for it.
Is this of value? Absolutely!
Is this desirable? I don't believe so.
Can I use Type Mock to create software with decoupled, testable design? Of course I can.
But then there is the question: what do I get from Type Mock?
Quite a lot of other goodies, actually:
- Integration with the IDE
- Understanding debugger func-eval (and evil feature which can cause no end of pain when doing mocking)
- Visual Mock Tracer
- Other things that I am not aware of because I am not a Type Mock user
The question whatever you should use it or not depends on your situation, as the author of Rhino Mocks, I don't think that I can give an unbiased opinion.