SNIP
>
>I too have responded with "no formal testing" which equates in many business minds to "no testing" which I'm sure you would all agree is simply not wise in this day and age.

Don't you think that you are over-dramatizing just a little bit here?... I surely do!

You seem to think that good and adequate testing is impossible UNLESS there is some external (or possibly even internal, I suppose) "testing tool" available. I beg to differ.

Since when does "formal" equate to 'automated'???
Many of us have adopted 'unit test / system test / quality assurance test' as our FORMAL test methodology and this is all controlled (basically) manually for lots of languages besides VFP. And many of us are delivering code that runs as 'cleanly' as the stuff that MS publishes... even with all of the automated testing MS has in hand!

And VFP does offer some tools, like the debugger and the coverage profiler and SET ASSERTS that are most useful in assisting to deliver nice clean applications to our users.

If you are really confident that automated testing capabilities for VFP are a gaping hole that badly needs filling then I remind you that we do have a Wish List here on UT where all are free to contribute.
Such a wish may already be there, in which case you will get some idea of how this issue is rated in the context of the overall, and if it is not there you can make the case and then sit back and wait for the ratings to roll in.

cheers