2 ms·

That you can afford to be blind to because you have someone doing QA?

• lhnz 16y ago
  Well, that's certainly helpful. But what I'm saying is more that, without a QA team, while I would I would almost certainly attempt to quality control my own code more, it would be ignorant to deny that I or anybody else has blind spots. I believe it's a lot more difficult to see your own errors than somebody else's. I believe QA is a fulltime job. I believe the relationship between developers and QA people is mutually beneficial to both people.
• awj 16y ago
  No, that you're blind to because it's in the nature of software development. Spotting flaws in something you've spent the last $X hours convincing yourself is correct is hard to do. It's easy to make invalid assumptions and internalize them in your thinking to the point you don't notice them. This problem exists, and largely is solved by dragging in someone else to help with it. That someone else, unless you'd like to squabble over semantics, is doing QA.
• datasink 16y ago
  The author plays to the stereotype of developers who recklessly "commit and forget it". In a properly run organization, QA takes note of developers who consistently commit show-stopper bugs. If the QA team is positioned as a clean up crew for shabby code, this is a failing of the organization rather than the developers. In an organization in which tests are developed for any code committed, and developers are careful not to break a build, soft issues are still caught by the QA team. Things that work but not as expected, minor cross-platform glitches, and permutations you'd never think to check, are all commonplace catches for a professional QA tech working with a well functioning development team. The author of the article really doesn't sound like he's worked with a decent dev or QA team.