I think the pattern of using `new (Class.extend({}))();` is gross. I think it reads better as steps.

```js
this.View = Marionette.View.extend();
this.view = new this.View();
```

If you don't need to create a subclass, then it can just be:

```js
this.view = new Marionette.View();
```

Also, I should explain the naming system I'm working on for tests.

```js
// subclasses
this.View = Marionette.CompositeView.extend({}); // when its the only view
this.CompositeView = Marionette.CompositeView.extend({}); // when you have multiple view with different types
this.{Foo|Bar|Baz}View = Marionette.CompositeView.extend({}); // when you have multiple views with the same type
// instances
this.view{1,2,3} = new this.View(); // numbered when multiple instances of same class
this.{foo|bar|baz|composite}View = new this.{Foo|Bar|Baz|Composite}View(); // always lowercase version of class
```

I also like to write out the full method for stubs:

```js
this.attachHtmlStub = this.sinon.stub();
// if you stub multiple instances of that method, then you prefix it with the views name (and yes this does happen in our tests)
this.fooAttachHtmlStub = this.sinon.stub();
this.barAttachHtmlStub = this.sinon.stub();
```

Sorry for ranting... :shrug: