But that's just reassigning or distributing 'blame' to the approver.
So what is the responsibility of the key-puncher if it isn't turning requirements into robust, correct code? Many comments here seem to suggest that programmers are just there to produce some sort of fuzzy first-stage approximation of what the code could be.
In that case, just employ an automated code generator and push the burden onto reviewers.
I think it would be great if we a group of people whose entire job was to watch over the programmer's shoulder, and every time they make any kind of mistake, SHAME THEM. Because shaming the developers is more important than anything else, apparently. All we need is other people who can 100% reliably detect errors in code... oh. They could simply be the developers instead!
> So what is the responsibility of the key-puncher if it isn't turning requirements into robust, correct code?
How can it be a responsibility to never make a mistake? Nobody can never make a mistake.
> Many comments here seem to suggest that programmers are just there to produce some sort of fuzzy first-stage approximation of what the code could be.
Many comments here seem to suggest that producing high quality code is a team effort supported by a company or department which values high quality code. If you had mythical no-mistake employees you could do away with most everything else. Why even have tools, tests, revision control systems if you're not making mistakes?
And if you are using tools, tests, etc. as part of not making mistakes, why not reviewers, bug testers, quality analysts, as well?
