One of the saddest sights to me has always been a human at a keyboard doing something by hand that could be automated. It's sad but hilarious.

A design remedy that prevents bugs is always preferable to a test method that discovers them.

Extra features were once considered desirable. We now recognize that 'free' features are rarely free. Any increase in generality that does not contribute to reliability, modularity, maintainability, and robustness should be suspected.

A good threat is worth a thousand tests.

First law: The pesticide paradox. Every method you use to prevent or find bugs leaves a residue of subtler bugs against which those methods are ineffective.

If the objective of testing were to prove that a program is free of bugs, then not only would testing be practically impossible, but it would also be theoretically impossible.

If you can't test it, don't build it. If you don't test it, rip it out.