Agreed. QA specialists are there to think about what the engineer didn't think about. Unless the engineer is incompetent or the organization is broken, the engineer has already written tests for everything they could think of, but they can't think of everything.

More importantly, it is almost impossible for engineers to be as well incentivized to spend extra time exploring edge cases in something they already believe to work than to ship a feature on time.

Like everything else though, its contextual. Complexity of domain, surface area and age of product, depth of experience on team and consequences of failure are all so variable that there cannot be only one answer.

I have done it both ways for many years. I have worked on teams where QA is a frustrating nuisance, and teams where they were critical to success. I have worked on teams that did pretty good without them, and probably those were the highest throughput, most productive teams because the engineers were forced to own all the consequences - every bug they shipped was a production issue they were immediately forced to track down and resolve.

But those were very small teams, and eventually I was the only founding engineer left on the team and far too many mistakes by other people made it to my desk because I was the only person who could find them in review or track them down quickly in production. That was when I started hiring QA people.

▲

MoreQARespect 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Ive almost never worked on a project where there was the right number of QAs who were doing the right thing.

Usually there either arent any in which case bugs get missed or there are 5 very cheap ones running mindless scripts who are standing in for the devs' inability or unwillingness to write decent automated tests but dont catch the really deep level thorny stuff.

▲

9wzYQbTYsAIc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> More importantly, it is almost impossible for engineers to be as well incentivized to spend extra time exploring edge cases in something they already believe to work than to ship a feature on time.

Personal liability and professional insurance works for all the actual “professions” in the US, to some extent, right?

It might be time to start the considerations for professional licensing for platform scale or commercially published software.

▲

ivan_gammel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

More like certified products. New ISO standard may require professional liability for software products, which will be adopted as requirement by big consumers and will pull the industry into certification loop, because insurers will ask for it. This will obviously put a high entry barrier to many product categories, slowing down innovation.

▲

9wzYQbTYsAIc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but slowing down to avoid hazards is sometimes important.

Medical devices and such are the only places I’d expect to see the need for certified products. By extension, in the new era, we really ought only expect certified software where we expect a duty to care from the software system (or any other assigned duty)

▲

ivan_gammel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

In development of medical devices existing quality controls are already working well, right?

	▲	9wzYQbTYsAIc 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My point exactly, embedded devices are the closest software gets to actually being built by licensed engineers. The expectation can often be that you are an electrical engineer by training, where licensure is a viable path, unlike in software engineering.