9 ms·
Yes, in the sense that all engineering design errors are human error. This is why we have critiques. Maybe something appears to work (i.e. doesn't give an error
by ironmagma 5y ago
Yes, in the sense that all engineering design errors are human error. This is why we have critiques. Maybe something appears to work (i.e. doesn't give an error, or serves thousands of flights successfully), but that does not mean no changes are necessary. There are latent bugs that can pop up at any moment.
Tests (including user testing) are guardrails; no one should be driving to their destination just by banging into the guardrails and letting that guide them. Not least because that's not what guardrails are for, but also because there are guardrails everywhere and they don't actually guide you in any particular direction.
- proc0 5y ago> Yes, in the sense that all engineering design errors are human error. This is why we have critiques. I'll agree to disagree... this is the reason we have automated tests, not why we have critiques. If you plot the quantity of human intervention in software development over time, I believe we will clearly see machines taking over in due time.
- ironmagma 5y agoYou need both. The kind and amount of wrong that a human can spot is very different from the kind and amount of wrong that automated tests pick up. Just like a guardrail isn't going to tell you you're going the wrong way on the highway, or that you got off at the wrong exit.