At the Eurostar conference in Amsterdam Simon Stewart (@shs96c) presented a keynote on Selenium over the years
During the key note Simon made the following comment
"If you are testing the web you absolutely need to be able to code"
Now I am sure that out of context this could be taken in many ways and Rob Lambert has produced a very good discussion on this same subject here which takes on both sides.
I will add is that Simon did follow this up with the following line.
"If not become a specialist so you can add value"
This led to some interesting exchanges on Twitter (search for #esconfs) in which people came down on either side. I had concerns that people would only hear the first bit and this could cause barriers to some great people being able to be involved in testing just because they have no interest in coding or even wanting to learn to code.
IMO I am not sure about this statement and it caused much debate after the key note. If you have an interest in learning code then do so otherwise do something that can add value. The discussions continued during lunch and the rest of this article is my own thoughts on this subject.
After talking to Simon afterwards it appears his message had got taken the wrong way. He said it is helpful to code and that if all you do is test (check) scripts then you may not have a job.
My concern is forcing people to code if they have no interest could be a block from great people wanting to enter the world of software testing.
Dot Graham stated the following "Lose a good tester but gain a poor programmer".
I am not convinced that everyone needs to code, it can have its advantages but there is another perspective. If you do not understand the code you may test in a different non-confirmatory way. You may be able to ask the difficult questions of why did you do it this way and made it complex? You may not have a bias built up from your coding experiences and knowledge. I think for some it can be useful but insisting on it is a very dangerous path to follow.
Some of the discussions that followed went along the lines that if testers refused to learn we should not employ them. This is where I had a WTF moment..... I have not said anything about testers not wishing to learn what I was saying was some people may not have an interest or a knack for coding or find it impossible for whatever reason to grasp. However they make one hell of a tester and show a great thirst for learning new ways to exercise the software that are novel, unique and valued. This was the second point that Simon was making and sadly appeared to have been missed. As long as you can find ways to add value then you can be a tester.
I am afraid that a statement of this sort can be used as a filter to prevent people entering this great world of software testing. There are many other things that IMO testers could learn about such as grounded theory, anthropology, social sciences, humanities, creative arts and the list goes on. There are some great testers who have learnt these things and should we prevent them for working as software testers because they have no desire to learn code?
I will finish this on a positive note and that it was great to chat with Simon even if our views are slightly different and that he is a very thoughtful and passionate person. I look forward to meeting up again sometime in the future and finding another topic to discuss.
PS Thanks to Rob Lambert for being the referee!!
(edited some of the grammar :o( )