The author is engaged in software development in a Japanese company. As a typical Japanese company, software development is obviously carried out in Japan's software engineering. Also as a Japanese company, there is a very different development perspective in many ways and European and American companies. What I want to discuss here is that some views on Test Japanese companies are very valued in REVIEW. They think REVIEW is the best way to solve the BUG, and even use excessive REVIEW in development. The more typical is our idea of our development of the class: Since the industry is now in the industry, it is not judged by testing after product manufacturing, the same software development should not guarantee the quality through testing, but should pass repeated Review, come Guaranteed the quality of the code. Under such ideological guidance, it is even as a standard through CMMI. I think there is three problems here. First, the development of software is equivalent to industrial production. This is absolutely incorrect. Software development is a high intelligence activity, rather than the production of parts, each of which. When there is no large-scale application in the so-called component era, the current software is more like a process, rather than engineering its meaning, software development, more is a progressive process, code from the core draft (there is When we call it detailed design) to the final finished product (sometimes we call Release) is to gradually mature through constant testing. The so-called test is that the software module is really or simulating the real environment to run to know the answer, which is a bit like scientific research. And Review, more like a paper talk. Let a group of people who do not participate in the code to see unfamiliar code, to discover hidden bugs? Tianfang night talk. Second, Review is more like a workshop product, there is no objective evaluation standard, no automation tool, in large projects, tens of thousands of lines of code to find possible bugs, obviously unlikely. If it is hard to use the software engineering than the construction project, REVIEW seems to observe each brick in the naked eye, and each wall can only have a subjective impact. When you really need to test the quality, it is necessary to be ruler and hanging lines. When using these tools, it can be called testing corresponding to software development. Third, in modern software development, the XP method advocated is to test priority, including Microsoft, the development method used is also test priority, and they have specialized test engineers, but there is no Review engineer. Death Holding the development attitude of Review, only allows the software to develop into the dead alley.
