<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Code Softly - Latest Comments in A More Scientific Approach to the Costs of Testing</title><link>http://codesoftly.disqus.com/</link><description>Humane Software Engineering</description><atom:link href="https://codesoftly.disqus.com/a_more_scientific_approach_to_the_costs_of_testing/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:38:09 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: A More Scientific Approach to the Costs of Testing</title><link>http://www.codesoftly.aaronoliver.com/2009/02/scientific-approach-to-costs-of-testing.html#comment-6139367</link><description>&lt;p&gt;When people say things like "Look how much money we've spent on testing and it still didn't catch this bug" I bet their testing efforts were poorly allocated, not that they spent too much on testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The biggest expense in testing is inefficient allocation of effort. We concentrate on what is easy to test or what we think we need to test. But bugs are more likely to be hiding in code that is hard to test or code that we don't think we need to test. Randomization is a way to compensate for this bias.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:38:09 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>