3 ms·

QA is basically your testing framework. It's there to do all the tests to make sure the software actually does what you say it does. No developer is good at t

QA is basically your testing framework. It's there to do all the tests to make sure the software actually does what you say it does. No developer is good at testing their own code because deep down no developer wants to break the code they just lovingly crafted.

joe_the_user 17y ago
I've always been treated well by QA. I'm sure there are problem QA departments out there but I doubt they are the rule. It's amazing to me that the parent got down moded for supporting the task of QA.
- dasil003 17y ago
  QA is awesome. I think people are responding to the suggestion that in general developers will subconsciously protect their ego by willfully ignoring flaws in their own software. That is just tremendously offensive to any real hacker, and if it were true the world of software would be a pale shadow of what it is today.
  - xsmasher 17y ago
    I don't think it's a slam on developers - I've hit and played outfield, and I know what each side feels like. It's not that developers wants to ship bad software, but haven't you ever avoided running a test because you're afraid of opening a can of worms? QA wants to open that can. There's a perverse glee in seeing all the worms get out. When a new bug is found (a good one, not BS indentation) then QA has a justifiable joy in finding it before it got to the customer. The developer may also be devoted to quality, but doesn't your heart sink a little when you see a new bug? Overall you both want to ship good product, but your minute-to-minute motivations are just different.
rapind 17y ago
As amusing as that statement is (and I think you meant it jokingly), I definitely have to disagree. There's just too many different developer styles to say No developer. Personally I like to ship quality code and am pretty anal about it's quality as well as it's interface, so you can bet I refactor my code a lot... and I mean a lot. (In fact I just refactored this comment to fix a spelling mistake... but I published it without writing any automated tests, or running it by QA... somehow I don't think many people noticed)
Quarrelsome 17y ago
No, QA is your double-check, you shouldn't rely on them as we're all just humans and we all can make mistakes. You should still test the code yourself and think of ways to break it. Although I will agree that developers are blind to some bugs (which is why you need the double-check).

joe_the_user 17y ago

I've always been treated well by QA. I'm sure there are problem QA departments out there but I doubt they are the rule. It's amazing to me that the parent got down moded for supporting the task of QA.

dasil003 17y ago
QA is awesome. I think people are responding to the suggestion that in general developers will subconsciously protect their ego by willfully ignoring flaws in their own software. That is just tremendously offensive to any real hacker, and if it were true the world of software would be a pale shadow of what it is today.
- xsmasher 17y ago
  I don't think it's a slam on developers - I've hit and played outfield, and I know what each side feels like. It's not that developers wants to ship bad software, but haven't you ever avoided running a test because you're afraid of opening a can of worms? QA wants to open that can. There's a perverse glee in seeing all the worms get out. When a new bug is found (a good one, not BS indentation) then QA has a justifiable joy in finding it before it got to the customer. The developer may also be devoted to quality, but doesn't your heart sink a little when you see a new bug? Overall you both want to ship good product, but your minute-to-minute motivations are just different.

rapind 17y ago

As amusing as that statement is (and I think you meant it jokingly), I definitely have to disagree. There's just too many different developer styles to say No developer. Personally I like to ship quality code and am pretty anal about it's quality as well as it's interface, so you can bet I refactor my code a lot... and I mean a lot. (In fact I just refactored this comment to fix a spelling mistake... but I published it without writing any automated tests, or running it by QA... somehow I don't think many people noticed)

Quarrelsome 17y ago

No, QA is your double-check, you shouldn't rely on them as we're all just humans and we all can make mistakes. You should still test the code yourself and think of ways to break it. Although I will agree that developers are blind to some bugs (which is why you need the double-check).