Software testers vs software developers

[puffff]

Are software developers worth valued than software testers would you say? It seems to me they should be. It takes more skills to develop software than to test it, the hours are longer, there's probably more pressure. Thoughts?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Basic bash-on-it QA doesn't get much respect, but Software Test Engineers that build automated test harnesses get a lot more (since they code too).

But we Developers are top of the heap, woohoo!

 

[lightweight]

Yes, and in addition they do some software "testing" themselves. Software developers don't just take some code they just wrote and say "Hey test this for me". Developers are paid more, and should be.

 

[mugs]

I'm a developer. My wife is a tester. I make more than her.

Unfortunately her hours are dictated by the developers more or less. When we have a delivery, if the developers are working to the last minute, she still has to test before it can go into production.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: puffff
Are software developers worth valued than software testers would you say? It seems to me they should be. It takes more skills to develop software than to test it, the hours are longer, there's probably more pressure. Thoughts?

that isn't necessarily true, it really depends on the complexity of the software they are developing and the type of testing it has to undergo. I'm currently doing work as a software tester and sometimes I see code that makes me go wtf is wrong with the guy that wrote this. But both are important to the software development cycle

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: puffff
Are software developers worth valued than software testers would you say? It seems to me they should be. It takes more skills to develop software than to test it, the hours are longer, there's probably more pressure. Thoughts?

that isn't necessarily true, it really depends on the complexity of the software they are developing and the type of testing it has to undergo. I'm currently doing work as a software tester and sometimes I see code that makes me go wtf is wrong with the guy that wrote this. But both are important to the software development cycle

Importance and skill aren't necessarily the same thing. It really depends on the type of testing and the responsibility. Stress testing and finding bottlenecks in my opinion is a much more skilled activity than writing the software itself in many cases. Basic functionality testing is and should be mindless, and requires little skill. In fact, it generally can be automated. Test automation requires a decent amount of skill, to be sure. Also, basic software development can be made mindless too, if a software architect has done his job well.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: puffff
Are software developers worth valued than software testers would you say? It seems to me they should be. It takes more skills to develop software than to test it, the hours are longer, there's probably more pressure. Thoughts?

that isn't necessarily true, it really depends on the complexity of the software they are developing and the type of testing it has to undergo.

Oh come on. You don't believe that. It takes years to be a reasonably competent developer, and the reality is that most simply don't make it to competency no matter how hard they try. I'd guess that anyone with a reasonable computing background could learn to be a tester; granted, there are those that make better testers, but it can be easily learned. The better testers actually create the more complex scripts for tools like Rational Robot, etc. and for that they should be respected; however, still about 1/10th of the dedication required for competency as a developer, imo.

What I will say is that QA, in most forms I'm familiar with anyway, requires more interaction and understanding of business requirements. For this I think many QAers have a better chance at being more of an analyst than a developer. It's a different skillset.

 

[FoBoT]

testing/QA around here is a necessary evil/after-thought

 

[AmigaMan]

pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes their jobs secure, not easier. Making their jobs easier would be writing really high quality code so that they could just browse ATOT all day.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes their jobs secure, not easier. Making their jobs easier would be writing really high quality code so that they could just browse ATOT all day.

even high quality code has to be tested and documented.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes their jobs secure, not easier. Making their jobs easier would be writing really high quality code so that they could just browse ATOT all day.

even high quality code has to be tested and documented.

Yeah, but the less bugs, the less re-testing required after the bug is "fixed", the more free time for testers.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes their jobs secure, not easier. Making their jobs easier would be writing really high quality code so that they could just browse ATOT all day.

even high quality code has to be tested and documented.

Yeah, but the less bugs, the less re-testing required after the bug is "fixed", the more free time for testers.

True, regression testing is quite a bit of work.

 

[HN]

i feel developers have a harder job. that's why i try to make my notes as clear as possible (steps on how to reproduce bug) to make their work a bit easier.

i like developers who appreciate when us qa'ers find their hidden "features"

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
pfffftt... my software doesn't have bugs. Who needs QA anyways. 😉

Actually I've been named a "Friend of QA" since my code breaks so easily thereby making their jobs easier.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes their jobs secure, not easier. Making their jobs easier would be writing really high quality code so that they could just browse ATOT all day.

PSA...To prospective employers who may be considering Amigaman for a new job and searching AT posts...my original comment was sarcasm....no really it was.
TDD FTW!

 

[sourceninja]

I find testers mostly worthless. Sure they find tons of bugs, but then we are told, "Its ok, lets go live with it and patch it later". Then we are told "We dont have time right now, get on the next project". So basically their job is worthless as all they do is point out problems that will never get fixed and we already know about anyways.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I find testers mostly worthless. Sure they find tons of bugs, but then we are told, "Its ok, lets go live with it and patch it later". Then we are told "We dont have time right now, get on the next project". So basically their job is worthless as all they do is point out problems that will never get fixed and we already know about anyways.

who is "we"?
Testing is definitely not worthless. It really all depends on the type of software and the severity of the bug. If there is a crash level or critical/serious bug it should definitely should not be put into a production enviroment. If the bugs are minor, fixes can probably be put it off until the next build. The decision to "go live with it and patch it later" is typically a management decision. You have to look at it from a management standpoint, is it worth it to patch every bug that appears or just the serious ones?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I find testers mostly worthless. Sure they find tons of bugs, but then we are told, "Its ok, lets go live with it and patch it later". Then we are told "We dont have time right now, get on the next project". So basically their job is worthless as all they do is point out problems that will never get fixed and we already know about anyways.

Sometimes they can be good at reminding you why a manager is incompetent. At one job I had, the testers would occasionally put out bug reports relating to user interface issues, but the irony is that those issues were usually intentional decisions by management. The best example I can think of is a web site where they intentionally used a fixed font size, then said on the help pages that you can increase font size by doing certain steps, but those steps don't work in this app! The managers wanted the screens to look nice when the user selected super huge fonts, so their solution was to make the fonts always small even if the user selected xx-large.

The testers noted this bug, and for the brief period between when they reported it and when the manager ignored it, I was reminded why I hate the manager.

 

[HN]

also what is acceptable by one client may not be so cool with another. so to keep it consistent, you report anything you find unless you have evidence to the contrary - "don't worry about issue xyz, we already know about it" emails for example.

 

[Fenixgoon]

developers, developers developers!! developers DEVelopers, DEVELOPers, DEVELOPERS!!!! </steve balmer>😀

 

[Cooler]

Software developers most common phrase it?s not a bug it?s a feature!

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I find testers mostly worthless. Sure they find tons of bugs, but then we are told, "Its ok, lets go live with it and patch it later". Then we are told "We dont have time right now, get on the next project". So basically their job is worthless as all they do is point out problems that will never get fixed and we already know about anyways.

who is "we"?
Testing is definitely not worthless. It really all depends on the type of software and the severity of the bug. If there is a crash level or critical/serious bug it should definitely should not be put into a production enviroment. If the bugs are minor, fixes can probably be put it off until the next build. The decision to "go live with it and patch it later" is typically a management decision. You have to look at it from a management standpoint, is it worth it to patch every bug that appears or just the serious ones?

I never said testing was worthless. I just said its worthless to pay testers if you never use them. And thats what most companys do.