4 ms·

As a software tester who takes pride in his vocation, I need to use words more carefully. I hope you will, too. You are saying "it does work" for something tha

As a software tester who takes pride in his vocation, I need to use words more carefully. I hope you will, too. You are saying "it does work" for something that often seems to work, and for which you almost never carefully check to see that it is working (because that would be expensive). "Does" implies that it almost always actually works. That's not been my experience, nor, as I look around, does it seem to be anyone else's.

rglover 1y ago
> you almost never carefully check to see that it is working (because that would be expensive) I don't know about you, but I test everything thoroughly, whether I wrote it myself or used an LLM. I think you're nitpicking over language here when what I said is clear. It can and does work with the proper amount of attention and effort, but that doesn't mean that it will just magically work with a one-shot attempt (though simpler code certainly can—e.g., "write me a debounce function"). As a software tester, you seem to be personalizing what I'm saying as encouraging developers to be a burden to you. Instead, I'm looking at it purely from a productivity standpoint. If your own team is just willy nilly dropping code that maybe works on your lap (with limited to no testing of their own), it might be time to find a new team. Being a tester in that type of environment will always be stressful, irrespective of how the code is written.