Re:Good Quality Cuts down or out Testing
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
You're comparing apples to oranges (or engines to software). With an engine there is eventually an assembly-line that repeats the process of building an engine...a static item. I'm sure that all the bugs have been worked out before flipping the final assembly switch. So, there's little need to really test.
Software is a continually changing product. Sure, if we were all perfect, we wouldn't need to re-run all of the tests to verify the change that was made down in one of the 1000+ files, in a class that is inherited by hundreds of other classes. But in reality, we're human, we make occasional mistakes that may never be detected unless there are unit tests (among others) designed to catch those low-level problems.
You can never replace testing by just good quality, because you need 'perfect' quality to be sure.
Slashdot Mirror
...is just me snoring...
You're comparing apples to oranges (or engines to software). With an engine there is eventually an assembly-line that repeats the process of building an engine...a static item. I'm sure that all the bugs have been worked out before flipping the final assembly switch. So, there's little need to really test.
Software is a continually changing product. Sure, if we were all perfect, we wouldn't need to re-run all of the tests to verify the change that was made down in one of the 1000+ files, in a class that is inherited by hundreds of other classes. But in reality, we're human, we make occasional mistakes that may never be detected unless there are unit tests (among others) designed to catch those low-level problems.
You can never replace testing by just good quality, because you need 'perfect' quality to be sure.