5 ms·
I suspect it is easier to automate the programmer than the person doing/defining the tests. I would argue that "programming" in essence is first and foremost t
by trashtester 4y ago
I suspect it is easier to automate the programmer than the person doing/defining the tests.
I would argue that "programming" in essence is first and foremost the task of defining a set of actions or functions you want a computer to perform. This can be highly detailed (like assembly) or quite abstract (like SQL), and with AI you may even end up being able to just use English.
You will still need to check that the output matches your expectations, though.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoI was thinking about automation of programming and I have usually come to a conclusion that when AI will crap out X thousands lines of code, how are you going to debug it when it does not do what do you want it do? How are you going to debug code which you did not write so you don't exactly know what is going on? Additionally when you point out to AI what is wrong, how can you be sure, that AI has fixed the root cause or just made some fixes about that specific appearance of the bug, but it means that bug will pop up somewhere else?
- trashtester 4y agoI agree, and I didn't mean to imply that it's easy to automate programming, just that it's even harder to automate the creation of test criteria. Then again, these things don't need to be all-or-nothing. If you consider GitHub Copilot, and where it can be 10 years from now, I would not be surprised if it can double the productivity of most programmers by something closer to pair programming than a code review process.