You're right, to at least a significant extent, of course. On the other hand, you're addressing a narrow field of software development, and quality can be measured, created, and "proven" differently in other development circumstances. The example that sprang to mind while I was reading it is open source development.
Within (successful) open source software development projects, QA personnel vastly outnumber core developers — and yet, a great many QA personnel turn into patch developers, while core developers become in essence project managers for bug fixes. The model further diverges in how one can recognize quality: you can track the very public management of bug fixes and the development process, and even view the code. So can everyone else.
Ultimately, the difference is to a great extent the relative ease of measuring its quality.
I had more to say — profound, wise stuff, of course — but I got distracted by the fact that Edward Scissorhands is on TV, and I forgot what I was going to say.
|
- apotheon
CopyWrite Chad Perrin |
In reply to Re^2: What is quality?
by apotheon
in thread What is quality?
by jimt
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |