Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The author of the article has considerably overloaded the term "testing",

I would disagree. There is zero overloading of the term "testing" as that is an already extremely broad term of art that would seem to clearly apply to every example of production testing provided in the article.

> with little to no actionable information.

The article absolutely provides aome actionable points and breaks them up under "Technical", "Cultural", and "Managerial"

> An example of a pattern that you'll see repeating across all the comments in this thread:

The article repeatedly covers the exact points mentioned in your example exchange so the people you see having that exchange are those who at best only skimmed the article. I find that the light readers can sometimes dominate comment threads early but those comments eventually do become out outnumbered by the more interesting discussion. People who take the time to read carefully and think respond slower and thus tend to be back loaded.

> I have some views on the thesis of the article, and practical experience backing those views – but I simply won't express them because I don't want to get embroiled in the numerous minor arguments

That is unfortunate. The only way the discussion improves is when people do take the time to state their views, even when they don't have the time to follow up on replies. The only way to combat vapid discussion is to plant the seeds of better conversation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: