When working with software startups, you will observe a few counter-intuitive things. Good developers can produce bad software. It is usually ok to put out immature software that is not yet ready. Buggy software can successfully dominate a market. <\/p>\n
Many ‘good’ habits like adherence to process, discipline, good architecture and responsible communication don’t seem to correlate with success over the short term. All startups start as short-term experiments that will have a makeover once they achieve traction. Which means, startups do not always need to focus on developing good habits early in a product’s life. That makes our life as testers harder. But by trying to focus on ‘zero-defects’ we may actually be harming our client! <\/p>\n
If you come from a big company, the trade-offs made when developing early stage software could seem weird to you. So I have compiled a list of articles that will help you understand early stage software better. Hopefully, you end up developing a feel for one of my pet theories about software – bugs are usually born outside of code.<\/p>\n
1. The challenge of “good enough” software<\/a> by James Bach If you read through all the articles in this page, and you either end up feeling unsure about a few old habits and\/or you end up appreciating your past testing decisions better, then, great! This page has served its purpose.<\/p>\n When working with software startups, you will observe a few counter-intuitive things. Good developers can produce bad software. It is usually ok to put out immature software that is not yet ready. Buggy software can successfully dominate a market. Many ‘good’ habits like adherence to process, discipline, good architecture and responsible communication don’t seem to correlate with success over the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[101,82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thoughts-on-software","category-thoughts-on-testing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5480"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5480\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5499,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5480\/revisions\/5499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qxf2.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n2. The rise of “Worse is better”<\/a>
\n3. Big ball of mud<\/a>
\n4. Plan to throw one away <\/a>
\n5. It works<\/a> by Michael Bolton
\n6. Make the invisible more visible <\/a>
\n7. My life as a code economist<\/a>
\n8. Hitting the high notes<\/a> by Joel Spolsky
\n9. I highly recommend this book: Weinberg’s “Perfect software and other illusions about testing<\/a>”<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"