here's what i said:
what i actually am is a software tester. by choice. i noticed someone else saying it's a loathed profession, but personally i'm endlessly thankful someone invented it just in time to save me from doomed attempts to be competent at anything else. i think of it as sort of a padded cell in which it's not only safe to be the way that i am, but even (in theory) the 'right' way to be
and here's what monika asked:
What do you feel is the "way of software testers"? The way you are that is just right for being a software tester?
well . . . h'm. i don't know how to explain it in a single thing. it's more like a cluster of things. i never would have made a very good programmer, i understand now. or i dunno, maybe a perfectly competent one, but never as happy a one as i am a tester. i did go to programmer 'school' since back then as far as anyone i knew knew, programming was the only 'thing' you could do. it wasn't a very good school, in fact it was a rat-awful one. but i learned enough of several languages to write a 'project' in each of them. this was mid-90's, btw. we did little projects in c, pascal, dbase iii, cobol, something called clipper, assembly code and um . . . i think c for windows. event-based was just coming out. if oracle and sql existed then the place i went to sure didn't know about it.
funny thing is, i was good at it. i wrote very good programs, for what they were. i sure got obsessive enough. drivelling sweats of obsessiveness, remove-my-kidneys-with-a-hot-spoon-and-i-won't-blink kind of thing. but i always liked the debugging best. even then i spent 20% of my time writing the code, 40% testing it and then ripping the whole thing apart to get rid of flaws. or designing all kinds of additional stuff to trap all the different user scenarios and handle them well. and the other 40% crouched over my debugger like it was a gerbil, lovingly feeding it special data and then setting breakpoints that would make it reveal what it was up to in there. i would have been a hellish developer
(not that i wrote sloppy code; i wrote it as well as anyone else. it's just that once i wrote it, i always tested the snot out of it. and i always had a whole lot more fun doing that than with the code itself)
i dunno. i just somehow learn more about something, understand it better and more completely, by drawing hypotheses based on its behaviour than from just looking at the inside of it. it's kind of hard to explain. it seems to me like a 'real' dev just looks at the code if they're trying to track something down (remember this code i wrote was pretty simple designs). i could have done that too with my stuff, but it bored me. even when the code's open to me, i'd rather make it show the behaviour, and then draw my construct of the underlying logic by inferring from that. it's the inference process itself that i like. it's more fun, to me, than just looking at it. there's an extra step in it, an extra loop.
i'm much better at understanding what i don't understand than i am at understanding what i do understand. i know that sounds weird, but it's sort of true. i think i construct my picture/understanding of things by defining whatever they're not. it's like the story of the sculptor who was asked how to carve a statue of an elephant. he said 'well . . . first you get a big block of marble, and then you cut away everything that doesn't look like an elephant'. that guy could make a tester i find devs very interesting, because in my experience a developer-type sculptor would probably say something like ' . . . and then you carve it into the shape of an elephant'. it's a totally opposite perception process from mine. i don't even really understand what they mean by 'an elephant' from something so vague.
in general life, i was just referring to the fact that it's not like i learned how to be like this in the process of becoming a qa analyst. it's how i always was. you know how people are always going around nowadays exhorting each other to think 'outside the box'? well, that's not really my struggle, personally. i've kind of gone through most of my life going 'huh? there's a box?' because i don't seem to see it at all.
i don't know if that helps, but it's awful darned late.