• the beholder (unregistered) in reply to gil
    gil:
    I'm curious, do you really think all these typos in the articles are accidental? There are so many of them, and often a similar pattern appears day after day. I'm pretty sure the author does it deliberately to amuse himself.
    [image]
  • illtiz (unregistered) in reply to Peter
    Peter:
    beentheredonethat:
    ochrist:
    beentheredonethat:
    Oh really? ... has been ... ships? Please google "stones glass houses".

    Maybe you should just adjust your sarcasm/humo(u)r detector?

    Purposely misspelling went out of style (and way out of funny) the 3rd or 4th time around with lolcatz some years ago.
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    Behold the advent of the first grammar nazi nazi in this fine forum. Well played.

  • czech (unregistered) in reply to frits

    Isn't this comment supposed to be under the "c-bitmap" article?

  • Gotcha (unregistered) in reply to czech
    czech:
    Isn't this comment supposed to be under the "c-bitmap" article?

    See this.

    I am not a Robot.

  • Psilax (unregistered)

    I'll regret putting this here later, but I think my boss has the same mentality. Weren't it for some of my colleagues and myself our software would be send out to customers with mainly only basic tests. And these are only done when a programmer adds a new feature or fixes one of the not so rare bugs. Fortunately for us some new projects require ISO certification of the company so all production and release process are being reviewed and testing is being discovered as a requirement.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    APP:
    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.
    Academia disagrees with you.
    This is an area where authorities differ. (Thankfully, singular words ending in “s” are quite rare.) The rule I was taught is that singular possesive appends “'s”, even when the base word ends in “s”. It has the advantage of being fairly straight-forward and clearly distinguishing singular, plural, singular possessive and plural possessive.

    But again as noted above, this is an area where authorities differ. (Where they do agree is that plural possessive doesn't get an “s” after the apostrophe. Except in some dialects…)

  • Yoda (unregistered)
    WE WILL TEST NOT SOFTWARE BEFORE IT SHIPS!

    Nothing wrong with this see I!

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    nobody:
    Peter:
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    "has been" and "ships" don't agree with each other. That is all.

    That's incorrect in at least three ways.

    1. They don't need to agree with each other. The original quotation was "this comment has been tested before it ships". "has been" agrees with "this comment" and "ships" agrees with "it".

    2. "has been" and "ships" are both singular verbs, so in a sense they do agree with each other. This is because the pronoun "it" refers back to "this comment".

    3. Even if they should have agreed but didn't, that wouldn't be a misspelling. It would be a grammatical error.

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to illtiz
    illtiz:
    Peter:
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    Behold the advent of the first grammar nazi nazi in this fine forum. Well played.

    Why thank you.

    Actually, I was genuinely puzzled by the posting I replied to. I hoped someone could explain what misspelling beentheredonethat thought he or she had spotted.

  • Quirkafleeg (unregistered)

    I find it surprising that everybody's picking various grammatical nits but always missing one glaringly obvious one: it's not the software which is doing the shipping!

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Quirkafleeg
    Quirkafleeg:
    I find it surprising that everybody's picking various grammatical nits but always missing one glaringly obvious one: it's not the software which is doing the shipping!

    What if it's shipping software? Or did I just blow your mind?

  • cfreak (unregistered) in reply to Drew

    Are you located in the Dallas area?

  • cfreak (unregistered) in reply to Drew
    Drew:
    Except for the orswellian approach, this is pretty much exactly what happens here.

    Anyone looking for an OSS software engineer?

    Apparently "Reply" doesn't mean "Reply" ... so let's try this again. Are you located in the Dallas area?

  • Cool guy (unregistered)

    Dammit Mark, enough is enough! I am tired of these motherfucking sentence fragments in these motherfucking articles!

    Samuel L. Jackson aside, get your wife or girlfriend or mom, hell, just find SOMEONE to proofread your damn articles.

  • Quirkafleeg (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Quirkafleeg:
    I find it surprising that everybody's picking various grammatical nits but always missing one glaringly obvious one: it's not the software which is doing the shipping!

    What if it's shipping software? Or did I just blow your mind?

    Do you mean shipping software or shipping software? Well? Which is it? Which is it? splat

  • beentheredonethat (unregistered) in reply to Peter
    Peter:
    illtiz:
    Peter:
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    Behold the advent of the first grammar nazi nazi in this fine forum. Well played.

    Why thank you.

    Actually, I was genuinely puzzled by the posting I replied to. I hoped someone could explain what misspelling beentheredonethat thought he or she had spotted.

    I zeez troll, kk! lolhz!

    Now shoo. Go pester the political commenters on Usenet. :-P

  • captain obvious (unregistered) in reply to [email protected]
    Found another funny one that made my co-workers laugh.

    Towards the bottom: "No matter the outcome, so long as Scott kept playing like the "big boys", his business's continued stability was assured."

    business's - or should it be business'ssss'ssssssss

    Your co-workers were probably laughing at you, dumbfuck.

  • captain obvious (unregistered) in reply to cfreak
    cfreak:
    Drew:
    Except for the orswellian approach, this is pretty much exactly what happens here.

    Anyone looking for an OSS software engineer?

    Apparently "Reply" doesn't mean "Reply" ... so let's try this again. Are you located in the Dallas area?

    Look at the top right of the post when you use "reply".

  • hs (unregistered)

    Hi,

    the developers in knowing the performance of the software testing application. http://softwaretestingnet.com/

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to beentheredonethat
    beentheredonethat:
    Peter:
    Actually, I was genuinely puzzled by the posting I replied to. I hoped someone could explain what misspelling beentheredonethat thought he or she had spotted.
    I zeez troll, kk! lolhz!

    Now shoo. Go pester the political commenters on Usenet. :-P

    Okay, I've evidently caused offence. It was unintentional. I apologise.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    And today in this thread, we are examining the devolution of civility amongst supposedly intelligent individuals. Now, keep very quiet everyone, we don't want to scare them away...

  • illtiz (unregistered) in reply to Peter
    Peter:
    beentheredonethat:
    Peter:
    Actually, I was genuinely puzzled by the posting I replied to. I hoped someone could explain what misspelling beentheredonethat thought he or she had spotted.
    I zeez troll, kk! lolhz!

    Now shoo. Go pester the political commenters on Usenet. :-P

    Okay, I've evidently caused offence. It was unintentional. I apologise.

    Meh, this does it for me. I'm not around forums much and I think I shouldn't be. Telling trolls is impossible now, you just try and guess whether the number of levels of irony is even. At this rate, each and every post in here is probably offending to more or less half of all readers...

  • Mad Jim (unregistered)

    I accidentally a whole Access database.

  • C (unregistered) in reply to captain obvious
    captain obvious:
    cfreak:
    Drew:
    [...]
    Apparently "Reply" doesn't mean "Reply" ... so let's try this again. Are you located in the Dallas area?
    Look at the top right of the post when you use "reply".
    Actually, all cfreak should do is learn to use the Preview button. And realize that Reply does mean Reply, and if they want to Quote the original message, they should use Quote. In occasions such as these, people should actually be apologizing for their own misunderstanding instead of bashing the site's software...
  • chl (unregistered) in reply to C
    C:
    In occasions such as these, people should actually be apologizing for their own misunderstanding instead of bashing the site's software...

    No, the software author should apologise for their usability blunder.

  • tate vulpu (unregistered) in reply to chl
    chl:
    C:
    In occasions such as these, people should actually be apologizing for their own misunderstanding instead of bashing the site's software...

    No, the software author should apologise for their usability blunder.

    No, both.

  • erat (unregistered) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    Proof again that no amount of testing can guarantee the absence of bugs.

  • Freddo (unregistered)

    So, this guy invented XP..?

  • Duke of New York (unregistered) in reply to erat
    erat:
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    Proof again that no amount of testing can guarantee the absence of bugs.

    ... but unit testing together with code coverage bars will get you closer in practice than any "formal methods" voodoo.
  • Crusty (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    And today in this thread, we are examining the devolution of civility amongst supposedly intelligent individuals. Now, keep very quiet everyone, we don't want to scare them away...
    +1
  • Karlos (unregistered) in reply to Ken
    Ken:
    deliberately put bugs in functions you suspect no one ever uses ;)

    That's an amazing idea! I've been wanting to trim down an app for a while. That sounds EXACTLY like what I need to do.

  • GeraldDew (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • (nodebb)

    thanks for info

    Addendum 2024-03-26 22:36: I can tell you how to optimize your company now without any problems. I was lucky enough to find Stellar Staff who really helped me in my work, as I was able to outsource a lot of important functions to them. We have been working with them for a long time and I have extremely positive impressions. It allowed me to allocate more time to priority areas and redistribute the workload of the company's employees. So I highly recommend them.

Leave a comment on “Test No Software Before it Ships!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article