Omg. Yes automated tests. If I was a purchaser of your product, and I wanted to run my fortune 500 business off of it in a mission critical way, how are you going to prove that your product didn't suffer any functionality reversions between versions?
How are you going to prove it's interaction with the other systems, that your software ties into, actually works?
Why do you believe that fixing bugs later in the SDLC, will somehow save you time and money, over early detection of those same issues?
To me, not having automated tests, is the equivalent of technical debt. You have no way to prove that your software runs reliably, or even runs correctly. It also leads to poor design.
Making the assumption that manually testing is going to save you time is the most insane thing I have ever heard of.
What evidence do you have that you are so infallible, that you won't waste development cycles by manually testing?
What evidence do you have that you will even manually test consistently?
What evidence do you have that your co-workers will manually test things consistently as well?
Also, how would you expect to convey these multiple manual tests to others?
Are you comfortable with your customers finding bugs in your software?
Will that cause reputation damage to your software and business/brand?
... To me, those are the real questions that should be asked.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Omg. Yes automated tests. If I was a purchaser of your product, and I wanted to run my fortune 500 business off of it in a mission critical way, how are you going to prove that your product didn't suffer any functionality reversions between versions?
How are you going to prove it's interaction with the other systems, that your software ties into, actually works?
Why do you believe that fixing bugs later in the SDLC, will somehow save you time and money, over early detection of those same issues?
To me, not having automated tests, is the equivalent of technical debt. You have no way to prove that your software runs reliably, or even runs correctly. It also leads to poor design.
Making the assumption that manually testing is going to save you time is the most insane thing I have ever heard of.
What evidence do you have that you are so infallible, that you won't waste development cycles by manually testing?
What evidence do you have that you will even manually test consistently?
What evidence do you have that your co-workers will manually test things consistently as well?
Also, how would you expect to convey these multiple manual tests to others?
Are you comfortable with your customers finding bugs in your software?
Will that cause reputation damage to your software and business/brand?
... To me, those are the real questions that should be asked.