3 ms·
That grind work can be done much cheaper (and probably more reliably) by a dedicated tester. I won't dispute that, as that is a major reason why companies love
by run4yourlives 17y ago
That grind work can be done much cheaper (and probably more reliably) by a dedicated tester.
I won't dispute that, as that is a major reason why companies love testers.
The problem is that while the testing is done cheaper and perhaps better, that's not really the goal of the whole process now, is it?
The goal of the process is to match the product to the customers expectation/need. I submit that the best possible way to do this is to have programmers that are also managing that need, even if it is more expensive and/or less efficient when view specifically.
- jister 17y agoI think the best way is to have a specification coming from the customer indicating their needs and expectation. Any feature that's not mentioned in the document cannot be considered a "bug". Based from this specification, testers/QA can not write their test cases.
- nostrademons 17y agoYou will never get that specification. Most people don't know what they need until you show it to them. Specification-driven development is a great way to write software that gets you paid, gets some purchasing manager a bonus, and yet pisses off every end user who comes in contact with it.