|
|
|
|
|
by greenyoda
2579 days ago
|
|
Having a separate team of "maintenance programmers"[1] who fix bugs is a decades-old idea, and I worked in an environment like that years ago. I think it's much better for the original developers to have the responsibility for fixing their own bugs, since it gives them the incentive to be more careful when writing and testing their code. Not allowing them to write new code until their known bugs are fixed puts the brakes on impulsive developers who churn out unreliable, poorly-tested code quickly. Also, people who fix bugs in other people's code tend to have a worse understanding of the code than the original authors. This pushes them into making microscopic fixes that address the symptoms of the currently-reported bug, but may introduce new bugs. In contrast, the original author might have the knowledge to rewrite a larger part of the code in a way that fixes many related bugs and makes the code more reliable. [1] http://typicalprogrammer.com/the-joys-of-maintenance-program... |
|