Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: The Value of a 2nd Look At Code Date: 2 Feb 2026 21:27:19 GMT Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <6975f968$0$28050$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <3csdR.1398925$H7H.1265376@fx13.iad> <697dd67b$0$417$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <20260202084402.00004b82@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net Izfj4Is00WzSrBcgDKBhWQ9Q1caaBeA/gSEVyUE+zv6HkoMRfz Cancel-Lock: sha1:jw3OOwcw2KrXYi9HlFDufq2wRqU= sha256:nsOfPuyDcPf8DaQ5OApQeTJyvZjFPfhSH8AT5iW3GYo= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:81693 On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 08:44:02 -0800, John Ames wrote: > For bosses who don't understand programming and don't want to, it's easy > to think "they're being paid to produce this 'code' stuff, so the more > code they produce, the more value we're getting on their salary." > But that leads (at best) to sloppy, bloated code, and (at worst) to > capable programmers getting fired for not being "productive" enough :/ The programmers were evaluated for results but the QA people were judged by the bugs they found. There was some irony since if the programmers were doing their job QA was reduced to rubber stamping the releases. That led to a tendency to file a number of related bugs that were all fixed by the same code changes to keep the body count up.