🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bhayden.724948146@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>Well - you may be right. However, the lack of a QC group is in itself
>an indication of a lack of due care. Needless to say though, this latter
>is probably harder to prove in court.

I disagree.  The lack of a QC group just *might* indicate a software
company that's "doing it right".  Making the software engineers who
_write_ the product responsible for

   (a) developing test plans
   (b) design review, and not just at a shallow level
   (c) testing code as it's built, extensively
   (d) veryify the results against the test plan

_and_ making them responsible for fixing their own bugs, too.  That
way they actually get feedback on their code -- all too often they're
on to another project before the bug reports come in.

Several companies also have these folks do their turn on tech support
as well, so they can talk to the users _directly_.  I used to do some
of that, and it was eye-opening, I can tell you!

You wind up with well-rounded software engineers (well, not all of us
look like that...) who understand the implications of their actions,
know how to troubleshoot, and have a pretty good idea of who their
customer (read, target user) is.

And no QC payroll to burn cash on.



Andy
-- 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
:  Andy Dunn           <amdunn@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn5177@mach1.WLU.CA>   :
:  "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really?   :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------: