原文：http://fafeng.blogbus.com/logs/10228371.html

最近Google Group的Software Testing (QC) & Software Quality Assurance (QA)组讨论了一个有趣的话题：测试的未来？。
来自印度的问题提出者hmsathish在帖子最后提出了4个他所担心的问题：
1. If any software boom is down first the Companies fire Testers.
如果软件增速减缓，公司会首先解雇测试员
2. Developers can do our job + Coding.
开发人员能做我们的工作＋编码
3. In future comfortable tools are coming.
未来舒适的工具会出现
4. No investments on the Testing more?
在测试上不再会有投资？

后面的跟帖大部分认为hmsathish的担心是多余的，并且认为软件测试还有着非常好的未来。其中Mark Crowther的回答非常好：
1. Wrong. This assumes the situation as it is now or was in the past, as it is in this transitional state, but you're talking about what the future holds. So this statement is wrong. The ones at risk are development, probably more like Technical Authors or Support Desk. The value the business derives from testing is eminently improved the more difficult the economic situation becomes. The logic for this is because there is a need to maintain a share of a shrinking market where the differentiator would be price and quality. Testers are far cheaper than developers generally and in safeguarding quality are essential. Safeguarding quality ensures the total cost of ownership is reduced meaning a well tested product is a better investment. A product with higher quality means a reduced need for Support Staff there by bringing a greater saving to the business.
错。这是假设情况，因为它是现在或过去，而且是过渡状态，但你正讨论的是未来。因此这个论断是错的。那些处于危险的是开发，也许更像技术作者或支持服务部。从测试获得的商业价值在于明显改善了更加困难的经济形式。这种逻辑是因为有必要保持份额不断萎缩的市场的内在将是价格和质量。测试员一般比开发员更廉价而且他对保障质量至关重要。保障质量确保的总拥有成本降低意味着测试产品是一个更好的投资。更高质量的产品意味着减少支持员工数会带给商业更大的节省。
2. Wrong. A simple reflection on the Division of Labour, Specialization of Work theories will tell you that there will at some point be enough work and enough need for focus of effort by individuals who are particularly experienced in testing, to need people who's specialization is testing. Turn this around, can testers also code as well as developers? We would always say No to this, we understand their specialization, experience, etc. lend themselves to being developers who can test, just as it does us being testers who can develop. But the two professions are not fully inclusive.
错。简单的劳动力分工的反映，专业化工作理论将告诉你，有一点是足够的工作和那些在测试上特别有经验的个人足够专注的努力，尤其需要测试上的专家。反过来说，测试员也能像开发员那样编码吗？我们经常对这说不，我们知道他们的专长，经验等，让他们成为能测试的开发员，就像我们成为能开发的测试员。但这两个专业并非完全包含。
3. Wrong. This has been spoken of for many years and even the best of the Record and Playback tools fail at encountering the simplest of issues.
This is the same logic as for the robots running their AI cleaning my house and making me a cup of tea as I type... I still don't have one. Even if we accept the suggestion that these tools become so all powerful they are acting like a tester, who's going to configure, run, maintain, mature what they do? Is this person by definition not a tester?
错。这已经说过很多年，当碰上最简单的问题即使最好的录制回放工具也会失败。同样的逻辑对机器人运用它们的人工智能清扫我的房间，给我一杯茶当我敲入…我仍没有得到。即使我们接受这些工具变得如此强大并能像一个测试员一样做事的想法，谁将去配置，运行，维护，完善它们所做的？这个定义的人不是测试员吗？
4. Wrong. The very act of investing in the above in a desire to eliminate the tester is by its nature investing in testing. If we accept that the paradigm of how we currently define 'tester' will shift then you'll not get rid of testers. Again, what will happen is the boundaries between tester and developer will blur. I maintain it's the developers who are at risk in many areas.
错。上述投资的作用应该排除，测试员本质是在测试上投资。如果我们接受我们当前怎样定义‘测试员’的范式，转而你将不会脱离测试员。再说，即将发生的是测试员和开发员之间界限将会模糊。在许多领域我维护的是处于危险的开发员。

All of the above statements your Team mate made are based on the current paradigm of what a tester is. They are looking at what they understand the tester of today to be and in doing so are making statements about testers that essentially existed yesterday. Being in the profession we're aware that the days of just hitting keys and clicking the mouse are for the greater part over. Today's and tomorrow’s tester is a much more technically savvy professional.
你的队友(指贴主题中hmsathish的上司)做的所有上述申明基于当前测试员是什么的范式。他们在寻找什么是他们理解的如今的测试员并对本存在于昨天的测试员做声明。逐步专业的我们意识到只击键和鼠标的日子已大部分过去。现在和以后的测试员是技术上一个更加精通的专家。

They can develop test harnesses, stubs and drivers written in and interacting with a variety of programmatic languages, author complex data sets, work in an integrated manner with Agile teams on a level that blurs the boundary between tester and developer, use highly complex tool sets testing across the many components of the global system architecture and much more
他们能把开发测试一起，写桩和驱动还和各种各样的编程语言交互，编写复杂数据集合，在模糊开发和测试间界限等级下同敏捷团队以一种联合方式工作，使用高复杂度工具集跨越整个系统构架的许多和更多组件测试。

Today's and tomorrow’s tester is a professionally educated, examined and accredited professional, including but beyond that of a general computer science degree and some courses that a developer may typically have and soon potentially a member of a Chartered Institute. Putting them at the same level as Architects, Lawyers or HR professionals.
现在和以后的测试员是一个有过专业教育的，被考核和被专业鉴定，包括但不超出普通计算机科学学位和一些一个开发员可能要有的课程，并将可能成为一个特许学院的一员。把它们跟建筑师，律师或人力资源专业放在同一级别。

The key hitting monkey of yester year now uses techniques grounded in complex statistical and analytical mathematics, cognitive psychology and some of the best scientific research covering everything from computer technology to human logic.
昔日的敲键猴如今使用立足于复杂的统计和数学分析，认知心理学和一些最好的科学研究技术涵盖从计算机技术到人的逻辑的所有。

As I said, the future for software testing has never been better, the future is brighter than perhaps we suppose, it's brighter than we can suppose.
正如我所说的，未来的软件测试从来没有比现在更好，未来也许比我们猜想的更光明，它的光明超出了我们的设想。

希望如此。

the future for software testing has never been better, the future is brighter than perhaps we suppose, it's brighter than we can suppose.支持！