There's been a lot of talk in various blogs, forums and on StackExchange about the distinction between Mock and Stub objects (most of them specifically referencing the Rhino Mocks framework). These include posts from Martin Fowler and a chapter in Roy Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing".
I'm currently looking at how to write more maintainable, readable tests, and in doing so have been looking at alternative isolation frameworks to Rhino. I've looked into the nSubstitute library, which just references "Substitutes" rather than "Stubs" or "Mocks". This post from Ayende suggests that he may head in a similar direction for RhinoMocks 4.0
My question is - while there seems to be a concensus about the distinciton betewen the purpose of a Mock and a Stub, is it really worth caring about? Does distinguishing between the two lead to more maintainable/readable tests, or does it just introduce unnecessary complexity?