• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (13/29) Dec 06 2014 Yes, but what they *don't* realize is that by not adopting proper code

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 06:46:58PM +0000, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 
 The majority of corporations I have worked for, software development
 is not their main business, so they tend to disregard anything that
 doesn't contribute to their business as waste of money.

Yes, but what they *don't* realize is that by not adopting proper code
maintenance practices, they're actually incurring more waste of money by
having their tech staff tied up fixing regressions rather than making
progress.


 I imagine your employer main business is software development.

Yes. I guess that makes a big difference. :)


On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 01:50:24PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On 12/6/2014 7:12 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
However, all this level of review kinda loses a lot of its
effectiveness because we have no unittesting system, so regressions
are out of control. :-(  The code is complex enough that even with
all this review, things still slip through. The lack of automation
also means QA tests are sometimes rather skimpy and miss obvious
regressions. Having automated unittesting would go a long ways in
improving this situation.

 
 Without the dmd compiler test suite, making progress with the compiler
 would be simply impossible.

And even then, regressions still do slip through every release. I can't
imagine what it would be like if we *didn't* have a test suite... dmd
would be unusably broken.


T

-- 
It's bad luck to be superstitious. -- YHL