>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.

And you have arrived at this assumption based on what? I don't want to get into an argument over semantics but I certainly do not appreciate the tone of your reply. What I am saying is that many development langauges are testable using third-party testing tools that wrap up a large number of common testing requirements allowing developers to get on with the job of developing and testers to get on with the job of testing. One thing that third party test tools do provide is a central repository for repeatable automated tests - something that any large application could benefit from. So rather than waste your time in condescending responses consider this. Decide for yourself if wading through the output of the coverage logs and manually driving your code down every logic pathway to see if any of assertions fail compares favourably to automatically running regression tests over your applications. If you feel the manual test process works for you then fine but at the moment VFP developers have no choice but to test manually. Automated testing is not a guarantee of bug free software but it certainly is a significant tool to help get somewhere near that goal. Manual testing is a time consuming repetitive task and computers are good at automating time consuming repetative tasks... lets allow VFP to take advantage of the myriad tools that already exist to do this.