I interpreted points one and two as being against the culture of "oh well, let testing catch the bugs". He's not saying that there's no need for testing, just t

I interpreted points one and two as being against the culture of "oh well, let testing catch the bugs". He's not saying that there's no need for testing, just that the developers shouldn't count on some other department to make sure their code works. I've only had a very short career so far, but I've already seen the people who resist any review, make it as hard as they can for testers, get upset with testing when they find bugs, or just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Even worse: a lot of this was in hardware design! When you need to go back and forth on a bug 4 or 5 times, every time the programmer claiming it was fixed but failing an old test case, a test group won't fix the problem, programmers taking responsibility to ensure their own code is correct will. > A sparring match between a great developer and a great test engineer is truly a thing of beauty. And in the end, both of them win. Absolutely. Unforunately, if the tester is not up to snuff, they're no help against a great developer, and a great tester against a sub-par (or worse, insecure) developer is nothing but trouble, no matter who's right.