My non robot hand has 10 fingers and can execute up to 10 point tactile dependent tests, but that's not really the point of this article. First, there seems to

My non robot hand has 10 fingers and can execute up to 10 point tactile dependent tests, but that's not really the point of this article. First, there seems to be a very uninformed notion that being able to "program" makes you a better tester. Maybe, but that really depends on what your context is. What's important is the mindset of the tester and how you can bake that into the engineering culture that it's in. Second, speed. Agile isn't about speed. Agile is about people and how the people interact with each other to produce better "things". I think one of the places where bugs are introduced in any development cycle and that's when the developers write code. The faster your "speed" is, the faster you introduce "bugs". The ability to test "fast" is nice but you have to test intelligently to get the most bang for your buck and you need a human for that. Third, Manual testing was referred to as the "lowest form of life on the dev cycle" is not a reflection on the tester but how bad the organization's hiring methods, and engineering processes are. How you employ a tool or a person does not define and limit what testing is for. cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Not to take away from Jason's accomplishments in the test automation tool space and what he's done to revolutionize and simplify certain tasks that would have been really tedious and even annoying to perform over and over again. I thank him for that. But, if people who doesn't seem to understand what testing is for and make summary judgements and/or conclusions on the future of people with brains in software testing, I agree wholeheartedly with Keith Klain as to where they can put that Robot's finger (https://twitter.com/KeithKlain/status/362941136207233025 https://twitter.com/KeithKlain/status/362941136207233025). Peace.