On May 7, 2006, at 9:56 PM, Roy Sutton wrote:

> I'm not sure why everyone automatically assumed he did not use unit  
> testing.  Unit testing certainly can point out there -is- an  
> error.  The fix he proposes for his problem (typoing variable  
> names) tells him -where- the problem is.  Unit tests can tell you  
> generally where you problem is but it still takes the debugging  
> work to step in and find out what -caused- the problem.

When you get better and better at testing your methods get smaller  
and smaller.  That's why we call them "unit" tests.  You just want to  
test one small piece of the code, or one unit, at a time.  When you  
only have to search three lines of code for a misspelled variable,  
you can find it pretty darn quick.

James Edward Gray II