> I don't think we take software reliability seriously enough, most of our focus is on speed of release, ever quicker cycles and it being OK to break things. T

> I don't think we take software reliability seriously enough, most of our focus is on speed of release, ever quicker cycles and it being OK to break things. This drives me up the walls. At my last job (food ordering startup the CEO had the attitude that releasing code that was 95% functional was Okay, remaining issues could be fixed as we went along. As a result, one developer overlooked a bug that cost the company €300,000, loyalty discounts weren't being deducted from payments to take-aways. They then had the cheek to demand take-aways pay them back. Then they launched a major upgrade to the system at 5pm on a Friday - two hours before their busiest time of the week. It collapsed a few hours later and it was impossible to roll back because they didn't include a roll-back SQL script for the DB. It took till the following Tuesday to fix it. The DB schema was all over the place and as a result it was slow. Entity Framework couldn't handle it and the SQL it was generating was terrible. Me being the only one with decent SQL knowledge had to replace all the bad EF queries with raw inline SQL. Despite this, they still carried on deploying without a care in the world. I was told to stop moaning about QA. We didn't have QA or testing staff, the CEOs attitude being why pay for QA staff when our clients will do it for free?