4 ms·
Well, I should have said that the idea is people would write well tested code before it gets released. I can also attest it didn't necessarily work out that ide
by rifung 11y ago
Well, I should have said that the idea is people would write well tested code before it gets released. I can also attest it didn't necessarily work out that ideally in practice.
On the other hand, I'll disagree that they combine dev/qa/support because they're cheap. This actually makes little sense to me because typically QA roles are paid less than traditional software developers. That being the case, it doesn't make sense to get rid of them and let your developers do that stuff if all you want to do is save money.
What I heard was that they used to have support staff but changed it because it wasn't working out. I wasn't there so I don't know if that actually happened, but I can see how it's both harder and slower to have someone who doesn't know the code base fix bugs on the spot.
Honestly I can see it both ways. I think there are a lot of benefits to having the developers write tests themselves. On the other hand, when a project gets big enough, I can see how it makes sense to have people only working on tools like automated test frameworks or build stuff.
- serge2k 11y ago> I can see how it's both harder and slower to have someone who doesn't know the code base fix bugs on the spot. Except you don't do that, you fight operational fires and other such bullshit and things don't get fixed. Their broken oncall system is one of the reasons why I don't want to go back to Amazon.