Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • To use your analogy, the QA person doesn't need to be a good cook--he/she needs to be a discerning eater. It doesn't make any difference whether the person involved can cook, you want to know if they can eat.

    It's been my experience that the best QA folks aren't programmers at all. (Though they generally have good analytical skills) Programmers tend to make crappy QA people, since they're far more likely to make excuses for deficiencies in the product or nearly instinctively work around problems. And progra
    • And programmers should never work primary QA for programs they wrote--they're useless in that case, often times making things even worse

      I completely agree, and I wasn't trying to imply that should be the case.

      After I get some feedback, I'm thinking of posting a bit more in the next couplea days, to "flesh out" my QA worldview - but, basically, the programmer who is elevated to QA levels is elevated because he is the exception - he didn't "make excuses for deficiencies in the product or nearly instinctively work around problems" as a coder, and that earned him a promotion.

      The idea, then, is to make his mentality infectious.

      Or something like that.