>Experience shows this not to be true. The designers usually have a better
>idea of where the real complexity lies in their software. They, therefore,
>have a better understanding of where to look for likely problems.
To an extent yes. But from my experience with application developing I
also know of bugs I would have never discovered because I wouldn't
have *dreamed* of ever using the software *that* way. Yes, the
designer most probably knows where problems are likely. But few
designers also take into account misuse (or rather unexpected use) of
facilities.
And it's *here* where independent testers could mean a plus.
Hmm, this reminds of a magazine article quite some time ago on quality
assurance, where somebody reported that they got quite a drop in
errors found in qa after 'accidently' putting a test machine where
their programmers could use it unnoticed ;-)
Independent
>testers tend to pick up problems in areas completely overlooked by the
>designer, but often miss many of the problems the designer worries over. Each
>type of testing has its place.
>
>The commonest reason for designers being poor testers of their own code is
>they simply lack a sufficiently aggressive attitude to finding problems in
>their own work. It isn't easy to change that kind of attitude. Often the best
>use genuine independence if for peer review of the design documents and code,
>rather than testing.
>
>By the way, in most software houses quality assurance is merely a clerical
>exercise - not a model I would promote!
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Philipp
-- Close the windows! The penguin is freezing.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/