2730: Code Lifespan - Revision history

AzureArmageddon: /* Explanation */ Grammar

2023-10-05T16:04:10Z

‎Explanation: Grammar

No Idea If There's A Character Limit LMAO: finished article.

2023-02-16T22:42:21Z

finished article.

172.70.178.49: Very subtle grammar.

2023-01-31T18:42:59Z

Very subtle grammar.

172.71.242.60: /* Explanation */ while grammatically correct, it took me a few iterations to realise what it was implying.

2023-01-31T11:57:58Z

‎Explanation: while grammatically correct, it took me a few iterations to realise what it was implying.

162.158.91.35: /* Explanation */ semicolon

2023-01-31T05:05:14Z

‎Explanation: semicolon

Mushrooms: /* Transcript */

2023-01-30T07:42:50Z

‎Transcript

162.158.91.35: /* Explanation */ former case

2023-01-30T03:07:59Z

‎Explanation: former case

162.158.186.94: /* Explanation */ rm the

2023-01-30T03:03:51Z

‎Explanation: rm the

172.70.206.205: /* Explanation */ not necessarily

2023-01-30T03:01:49Z

‎Explanation: not necessarily

172.70.214.151: /* Explanation */ replace deleted explanations

2023-01-30T02:59:35Z

‎Explanation: replace deleted explanations

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Explanation==
-This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
+This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panel note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
 The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 16 February 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|Created by a BOT PROGRAMMED 50 YEARS AGO (STILL YOUNGER THAN UNIX). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}~~

	This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w\|Catch-22 (logic)\|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w\|YAGNI}}.		This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w\|Catch-22 (logic)\|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w\|YAGNI}}.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 * "Surely no one will spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes."
-However, reality often falls short of such hopes, in that insufficient numbers of people recognize code intended for re-use, and far more people than intended will attempt to maintain and adapt sloppy work. The former can occur because of uncertain or unclear assumptions which aren't clear when the time comes to re-use code capable of it, and the latter sometimes happens because the corner-cutting peculiarities of hasty work are often seen as far deeper necessities than they actually are. The remaining two permutations express those far less hopeful outlooks:
+However, reality often falls short of such hopes, in that insufficient numbers of people recognize code intended for re-use, and far more people than intended will attempt to maintain and adapt sloppy work. The former can occur because of uncertain or unclear assumptions which aren't clear when the time comes to re-use code capable of it, and the latter sometimes happens because the corner-cutting peculiarities of hasty work are often seen as far deeper necessities than they actually are. The remaining two permutations express these far less hopeful outlooks:
 * "Surely no one will recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is."

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|Created by a BOT PROGRAMMED 50 YEARS AGO (STILL YOUNGER THAN UNIX). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
-This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used &mdash; defeating the purpose of future-proofing &mdash; while the code that was not will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
+This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
 The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|Created by a BOT PROGRAMMED 50 YEARS AGO (STILL YOUNGER THAN UNIX). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
-This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used &mdash; defeating the purpose of future-proofing &mdash; while the code that was not will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced, the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
+This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used &mdash; defeating the purpose of future-proofing &mdash; while the code that was not will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
 The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ==Transcript==
-:[Two situations are depicted between Ponytail and Cueball.]
+:[Two almost identical panels side by side depict a conversation between Ponytail and Cueball.]
 :[Ponytail standing next to Cueball, with her palm raised.]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used &mdash; defeating the purpose of future-proofing &mdash; while the code that was not will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced, the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.
-The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that the problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.
+The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.
 The title text is a modular sentence with two parentheticals, each containing two alternative phrases. This allows for four permutations of the sentence, each of which may be said by programmers. The following two permutations may be the hoped-for ideals of software developers: