On 03/30/2012 10:08:00 AM, Chris McMahon - cmcmahon(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
This article was making its way around the testosphere
this morning to much
approval. Although I question some of the numbers cited, I like the
overall description a lot, and since I have been having so many discussions
about QA on various projects, I thought it would be of interest to
wikitech: It's a short read, "The Confusion Around QA"
http://www.headspring.com/2012/03/the-confusion-around-qa-why-doesnt-the-in….
(Ian Baker in particular will I think recognize some of the points here
that we covered in our own discussions)
Thanks for a link to that nice little article.
I attribute the problem discussed to a failure of education, a failure to make
clear the point of "computer programming" etc.
I also remember Dijkstra, who wrote, long ago now, "no amount of testing can
prove the absence of defects", and made the unassailable case, at least for
me, that defects had to be prevented by design. This is essentially the
"discovery" that the author of the referenced note describes. I can not
recommend "Notes on structured programming" enough. A pdf reprint of the book
"Structured Programming", which contains it, is available through the ACM.
Note that all 3 authors later, independently received Turing awards.
--
Jim Laurino
wican.x.jimlaur(a)dfgh.net
Please direct any reply to the list.
Only mail from the listserver reaches this address.