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