> Right now, a single developer with Claude code can very easily overwhelm even a couple of testers with new code to test.
Because there are endless errors and problems that never gets fixed with AI coding. The reason testers ran out of things to test before was that developers tested themselves before sending it over, if you take a bunch of cowboy coders coding thousands of lines a day with no testing whatsoever before throwing it over to the testers you would say you don't have enough testers even if you had thousands.
> Because there are endless errors and problems that never gets fixed with AI coding.
But, that's my point :-)
> The reason testers ran out of things to test before was that developers tested themselves before sending it over, if you take a bunch of cowboy coders coding thousands of lines a day with no testing whatsoever before throwing it over to the testers you would say you don't have enough testers even if you had thousands.
Right. But even if the devs are doing unit-tests (which is all devs are supposed to do), they can still overwhelm a QA department.
We could never do this before. GGP claimed that we always could. I am disagreeing with that specific claim - "We could always overwhelm the testers".
> If you have a team of 1x f/time developer and 1x f/time tester,
Y'all have dedicated testers!? In 14 years of development, across FAANG and startup, this has never been true for me. The closest I've come is a brief period when a group of ~7 teams were able to call on the services of two testers. As you can imagine, with that ratio, the testers were not spending much time doing nothing.
I've had it at least 4 times; it's a byproduct of working in a highly regulated industry that requires the software (or goods sold) to meet a specific certification (military/munitions/EMV/etc).
In the FAANG and startup world that I worked in, there was no QA department, so I assume that FAANGs and startups don't have a dedicated and autonomous/independent QA department.
That's not the point I was making, though. The point is that we could never emit code faster than it was to deploy. Deployment (including QA) was always 2x to 4x as fast. Sometimes as much as 10x as fast.
=================
EDIT: Of course, I've been working for about twice the number of years as you, and back in those days it was pretty common for large companies to have dedicated QA. Even Microsoft had those :-)
SEEKING FREELANCER | Ruby on Rails | Remote (US East or EU compatible timezone)
getregistered is a better way to do event registration.
We're looking for a freelancer for immediate projects and potential ongoing engagement.
--
Rails Developer - Integrations
We're looking for an experienced Rails developer to:
* Deliver working integrations to SalesForce and other identified platforms.
* Improve error handling, testing, robustness, code quality and consistency of our existing integrations codebase.
* Provide input on tooling and approaches for future API enhancements
--
Please email hn@getregistered.com with LinkedIn / CV / Samples of work and any relevant experience integrating systems via APIs as well as an indication of your rates and availability.
SEEKING FREELANCER | React Web | Remote (US East or EU compatible timezone)
getregistered is a better way to do event registration.
We're looking a freelancer for immediate projects and potential ongoing engagment.
--
React Web Developer
We're looking for an experienced React developer to port our existing Chakra UI components to GitHub primer - nothing wrong with Chakra, we just require consistency between our React and Rails views.
Ideally we want someone to help us set and document standards for usablity, accessibility, code quality and testing as we work our way through the existing codebase in Storybook.
Bonus points for experience with Ruby on Rails and end to end testing with e.g. Cypress.
--
Please email hn@getregistered.com with LinkedIn / CV / Samples of work.
This really resonates. We can write code a lot faster than we can safely deploy it at the moment.