1093
Meanwhile at Microsoft
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
1093 points (98.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
33887 readers
402 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Vibe coding or no, this is a massive QA failure.
That is the reality.
The problem isn't "vibe coding" (anyone who has ever managed early career staff will be able to attest that... the bar is REAL fucking low). The problem is a complete lack of testing or any sort of "investment" in caring if production breaks.
A lot of it is general apathy induced by... gestures around. But it very much goes beyond just the obnoxious rise in brain drains over "vibe coding". Personally speaking, I am THIS fucking close to driving over to my company's head of IT's house and burning it down with him in it (For legal purposes, this is a joke) as that entire team continues to think "We'll just wait until people tell us what is broken" is at all fucking acceptable.
But pretty much any SDLC is going to be built around code review. And code review is how you handle developers of different skill and sanity levels. Whether they are old hats who have been in the basement since before you were born, youngins who can't stop talking about Rust, or chatbots.
Yeah I hate when I read through a unit test and realize it doesn't actually test anything other than itself.
Shit code review is not code review. If you just rubber stamp everything or outsource it to someone who will, you aren't doing code review.
Aside from that:
Citation requested
If I had a nickle for every single time I had to explain to someone that their unit test doesn't do anything or that they literally just copied the output and checked against it (and that they are dealing with floating points so that is actually really stupid)... I'd probably go buy some Five Guys for lunch.
Its like saying that the problem is that you are using robots to assemble cybertrucks rather than people. The problem isn't who is super glueing sharp jagged metal together. The problem is that your product is fundamentally shite and should never have reached production in the first place. And you need to REALLY work through your design flows and so forth.
Bad developers just do whatever. It doesn't matter if they wrote the code themselves or if a tool wrote it for them. They aren't going to be more or less detail oriented whether it is an LLM, a doxygen plugin, or their own fingers that made the code.
Which is the problem when people make claims like that. It is nonsense and anyone who has ACTUALLY worked with early career staff can tell you... those kids aren't writing much better code than chatgpt and there is a reason so many of them have embraced it.
But it also fundamentally changes the conversation. It stops being "We should heavily limit the use of generative AI in coding because it prevents people from developing the skills they need to evaluate code" and instead "We need generative AI to be better".
It was the exact same thing with "AI can't draw hands". Everyone and their mother insisted on that. Most people never thought about why basically all cartoons are four fingered hands and so forth. So, when the "studio ghibli filter" was made? It took off like hotcakes because "Now AI can can do hands!" and there was no thought towards the actual implications of generative AI.
I know it's not related, curious about this part.
I know it has an aluminum based frame which should inhibit it's use to haul heavy loads, but what else?
I have seen at least 1 out of every 5 comments from coderabbitai that lead me down a rabbit hole looking to see if the suggestion is correct. It can waste so much time trying to validate their suggestions only to find out it’s complete BS.
And automatic test systems. It's not that hard.
Can't fail QA if there is no QA.
... Basically nobody in software development has done QA in about 15 years, aside of basically the last ol timer server admin types, who are now being replaced with ... whatever Microsoft is calling Tay or Cortana now.
There's always a few who try, and then corporate beats that out of them because it slows down 'productivity', you can basically only resist this for more than a year, two tops, if you are literally the only person on the planet who knows how to do what you do.
... which is also why those same old timers tend to ... seemingly intentionally not document anything usefully: job security.
You think the QA was done by a person? I'll bet this was Vibe QA'd.
The public, aka Microsoft QA Team, found the bug. It's a QA success!
Well, who’d ever think of testing that closing the app works. Some things you have to take for granted or you’ll never test anything meaningful.
If you are a company the size of Microsoft, you have more than enough resources to test absolutely everything.
You will never have resources to "test absolutely everything". It is ALWAYS about building out personas and deriving tests from those.
What this tells us is that one of two things happened:
The latter is a lot more common than you would think since it makes it much easier to automate these harnesses rather than having a human at a VM. But... this is what happens when you don't step through the entire workflow.
Didn't Microsoft fire their dedicated human testing team in about 2014?
Probably?
This is the kind of thing that a LOT of companies outsource. Mostly for ill.
Latest news is that Xbox Games Division had been required to aim for a 30% profit margin for the last several years.
Thats why everything sucks and blew up.
Thats a fucking insane baseline target.
Line for next quarter profit must go up, therefore, cut costs.
This is obvious self destructive in the long run, but that doesn't matter, what matters is C Suite's golden parachutes.
Well, there may have been a period when MS was trying to improve product quality, and in that time, yes maybe they did have very comprehensive automated testing processes. But before that, up to the time of Windows 7 I guess, their quality was dog shit.
In the early days, MS was an undisputed monopoly though, and not only did they not test thoroughly, they hardly even tried to fix bugs - the userbase had to take care of that too. Earlier versions of Windows had all sorts of workarounds and 3rd party tools to try and get things to work properly.
I suspect that once they'd achieved their objective of improving quality, there just weren't the incentives there any more for middle management to allocate resources to things like comprehensive tests.
Isn’t that the final step in the testing plan for every app though? The first step is always opening it.
A bug like this means literally nobody tested it at all on this build, or was so apathetic they didn’t file an obvious issue.
For people to test, you need management that is willing to invest in QA. But that incentive disappears for a corporation when there's no free market of competitors who can poach your customers by making a better quality product or service.
The person who fiddles with the always on top option in this monstrosity of a compositor maybe?