4 ms·

Don't be so quick to brush this off. The argument isn't so different from saying that we don't want to distinguish "front-end" and "back-end" programmers. It'

by ibejoeb 16y ago

Don't be so quick to brush this off. The argument isn't so different from saying that we don't want to distinguish "front-end" and "back-end" programmers. It's probably a special circumstance that you need a team that is entirely dedicated to verification. Feynman talks about this arrangement in his essay on the shuttle program (http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html). In a nutshell, the core software team is responsible for checking the code. Then there is a totally removed group that is adversarial, i.e., it is measured on its ability to trip up the software team. This is the same a "setting consequences" as this author describes. Now, the shuttle program is truly life critical. I think a good software team can produce quality results internally.

joe_the_user 16y ago
The argument isn't so different from saying that we don't want to distinguish "front-end" and "back-end" programmers. I don't want to distinguish front-end and back-end programmers. I would like to distinguish front and back-end development. I do everything currently but I still need put on a conceptual "testing hat", "GUI hat" and "back-end hat". That requires mental effort and costs time. A real Q&A would save that even if I was exactly as skilled as the Q&A person.
- MartinCron 16y ago
  Conceptual distinctions like that are great. I wish more people could be up front about the multi-modal nature of software work.
- ibejoeb 16y ago
  Yeah, that's true. I think the point of the source is that the first line of defense is with the originator of the code. Sure, the context switch is expensive, but that's the price of higher quality. It's not really about firing the QA team. Instead, it's about having a QA function that does not entirely relieve the original author of his duty to ensure quality.
lurker19 16y ago
Feynman's essay is describing a QA team, is it not?

by ibejoeb 16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago

The argument isn't so different from saying that we don't want to distinguish "front-end" and "back-end" programmers. I don't want to distinguish front-end and back-end programmers. I would like to distinguish front and back-end development. I do everything currently but I still need put on a conceptual "testing hat", "GUI hat" and "back-end hat". That requires mental effort and costs time. A real Q&A would save that even if I was exactly as skilled as the Q&A person.

MartinCron 16y ago
Conceptual distinctions like that are great. I wish more people could be up front about the multi-modal nature of software work.
ibejoeb 16y ago
Yeah, that's true. I think the point of the source is that the first line of defense is with the originator of the code. Sure, the context switch is expensive, but that's the price of higher quality. It's not really about firing the QA team. Instead, it's about having a QA function that does not entirely relieve the original author of his duty to ensure quality.

lurker19 16y ago

Feynman's essay is describing a QA team, is it not?