Monitoring and Alerting vs Manual Testing

Developers should learn and implement monitoring and alerting to maintain operational excellence in production environments, especially for distributed systems, microservices, and cloud-native applications meets developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical. Here's our take.

Monitoring and Alerting

Nice Pick

Developers should learn and implement monitoring and alerting to maintain operational excellence in production environments, especially for distributed systems, microservices, and cloud-native applications

Pros

• It is critical for detecting failures, performance degradation, security threats, and capacity issues early, reducing mean time to resolution (MTTR) and preventing downtime
• Related to: metrics-collection, log-management

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Manual Testing

Developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical

Pros

• It's particularly valuable for usability testing, ad-hoc bug hunting, and validating new features before investing in automation scripts, helping ensure software meets real-world expectations and reducing post-release issues
• Related to: test-planning, bug-reporting

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Monitoring and Alerting is a concept while Manual Testing is a methodology. We picked Monitoring and Alerting based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Monitoring and Alerting wins

Based on overall popularity. Monitoring and Alerting is more widely used, but Manual Testing excels in its own space.