8 ms·
Sounds good to me. If I could spend 60 hours on developing the initial tooling, and if I could spend just 5 hours writing minimal code to get things working as
by hannofcart 9y ago
Sounds good to me. If I could spend 60 hours on developing the initial tooling, and if I could spend just 5 hours writing minimal code to get things working as I want, and spend the rest of the 35 hours on testing and making everything watertight, I'd call it a job well done.
- nimchimpsky 9y agoThat sounds awful
- Udik 9y agoIt sounds awful, both for you and for the employer/ customer who pays you for only 5% of your time being actually spent in implementing features.
- r00fus 9y agoFeatures that break other features (or introduce vulnerabilities) because they haven't been through a basic testing are anti-features.
- Udik 9y agoSure. I don't write any tests (luckily I don't work on a business-critical system), and 10% of my time is dedicated to fixing features that were broken accidentally. And now? 90% of my time is still dedicated to developing new features.
- SadWebDeveloper 9y agoDon't bother feeding the trolls, r00fus it's a lego developer, if their framework doesn't support they will rebuilt everything from the scratch or mark it was wont-fix, for devs like him is that we can have nice things.