The article emphasizes the dangers of inadequate code testing in critical systems. It draws an analogy between medical devices and software, stating that while we would reject insufficient testing in healthcare, similar standards are often accepted in software development. The author argues that 75-85% code coverage is insufficient, as it leaves significant room for untested scenarios where bugs can emerge. The need for 100% code coverage is framed not as a quest for perfection but as a necessary standard to avert catastrophic failures in essential infrastructure and services.
"If a quarter of your code is untested, someone will be testing it. Spoiler: it's going to be your customers."
"Our Code Is No Different. We may not write firmware for pacemakers or surgical robots, but we do build the systems that run banks, hospitals, governments, and cloud infrastructure."
Collection
[
|
...
]