[ChrisMarshallNY]

> I don't think anyone says you should just casually ship bugs.

I'm not going to link to it, but there's an old post from someone here, that pretty much sums up the zeitgeist.

They say that if the code quality on your MVP doesn't physically disgust you, you're probably focusing on code quality too much.

That is, quite literally, making the conscious decision to "casually ship bugs."

[taeric]

I mean, is that a general feel across industry, or something a rando online offered up as a witty quip? I have never worked anywhere where people were casual about shipping bugs. Some of the healthier places I've been have focused on not getting worked up when you do. Don't take pride in it, but don't sweat the small mistakes. You will make them, whether you want to or not.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I wouldn’t know, but it was certainly presented as a “general feel,” and, anecdotally, almost every interaction that I’ve personally had with “modern” tech companies (in fact, with one, it resulted in a multimillion-dollar disaster), have shown me that “feel.”

The disaster I mentioned was particularly heartbreaking, because the tech was solid, and the people behind it, were good, but they absolutely refused to give respect to Quality, and everything went to shit.

Just look at the way any discussion of Quality Development gets treated on HN. This very post nosedived, ten minutes after it posted. The only reason that it’s still around, is because it must have been “second-chanced.”

[taeric]

I have seen people that love to argue the straw man of why 100% code coverage is not something that will often, if ever, give 100% confidence that your product is correct. But I have never met anyone that would not agree that <50% test coverage is a red flag. Could get most people up to about 85% before they would balk at the focus.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I would take it a bit further: https://littlegreenviper.com/testing-harness-vs-unit/