> Web developers need to stop taking the lazy option and test more.
Who is going to pay for that? Most customers want a "fire and forget" experience, no ongoing maintenance budgets. Same for hobbyist projects.
Who is going to pay for that? Most customers want a "fire and forget" experience, no ongoing maintenance budgets. Same for hobbyist projects.
My company has no clients who want a 'fire and forget' experience any more. We've gone after clients who want something better than that. We've educated old clients to become better clients. We have a steady stream of reliable revenue, good things to work on, and we're proud of what we build.
There's always going to be companies that cater for clients who really do want the 'fire and forget' experience, but that doesn't mean people who want to write great software have to work for them. Leave that work for people who want it and find a role in a company that does better work with clients who understand why it's better and want to pay for better software. Don't just accept "no one pays for testing" as a fact. It's not universal.
I don't think a client/group requiring a set and forget (well, not quite forget, but to be hands off) is necessarily a bad client nor is one that wants continuous updates a good one. In some cases, it could be reversed because the set and forget client who disappears was most likely able to clearly define requirements as they needed them and they had the foresight to include anything that might come along ahead of time (or probably more likely, their use case is rigid and doesn't change).