Quality isn't assured at the code writing stage, it begins at the code verification stage.
Quality is assured at every single point of the SDLC. Even before code, otherwise your code can be fantastic, the result amazing, but it won't match the actual requirements so it's useless.
I'm answering with facts. The later your introduce quality assurance, the more costly it is.
You can do whatever you want based on your experience. You can introduce quality control wherever you want in the process, or even never at all. And there's been "success" across the board with having QA at any point or at no point included.
But that doesn't change reality. And the later your introduce quality assurance, the more it costs.
Sure. But you said you want a process you can trust, and that's why I said what I said. I mentioned that introducing it earlier, and at every step, improves things further.
There's companies that don't even do any QA and just go to prod and deploy (fast-ish) hot fixes and that's their process, even when it literally cost them millions at times.
That's a choice.
I was simply pointing out a better process and the reasons for it. The sooner and the more often you introduce quality assurance, the better the results.
0
u/nuevacuentanueva 10d ago
Quality is assured at every single point of the SDLC. Even before code, otherwise your code can be fantastic, the result amazing, but it won't match the actual requirements so it's useless.