I'm not convinced this should be a redirect, as there are examples of featuritis which did not "creep" into being. MaxEnt 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- All this bickering has resulted in the page for "function creep" being redirected to the "featuritis" page. That makes absolutely no sense and has made me a non-believer in Wiki. Basically, it's mob rule here.
- The previous comment is correct. While however well-intentioned, changes made recently to the Functionality Creep page and its redirect are utterly nonesensical. Functionality Creep is a real process, distict and novel. It should be recognized as as at least a stub page. Information about the positive and negative trends focusing mechanical and informational energy into self-perpetuating, selfish memetic entities and changing purpose from one user to another -- the information about these trends is still arriving. There deserves to be a page where edge-researchers can accumulate data regarding the further validation of Functionality Creep. Kreepy krawly 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to redirect it to scope creep for now - that seems more appropriate. Artw 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- While that may seem "more" appropriate, it remains inappropriate. Functionality Creep is not a concept limited to software. Not at all. It is an all-encompassing concept, which includes the topic of software. So placing the context into the content is the same as putting the cart before the horse. Functionality Creep should have its own place as a distinct topic. Kreepy krawly 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Quotes. These IMHO mostly should be, and probably will be, eliminated from the article eventually. Archiving them here.
- "The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren't there." — Gordon Bell
- "There are two ways of constructing a software design; one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." — C. A. R. Hoare
- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry [1]
- "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." — Albert Einstein
- "All that is good is simple and all that is simple is good" — Mikhail Kalashnikov
- "In Jeet Kune Do, one does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity." — Bruce Lee
-- 201.19.81.182 14:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted them from the article because they were completely irrelevant, and in any case unecessary trivia. To be honest even insofar as this article is of encyclopedic value (which I would question) its handling of the topic is so clumsy and unhelpful that it probably requires rewriting. Gunstar hero 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this should be a redirect, as there are examples of featuritis which did not "creep" into being. MaxEnt 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- All this bickering has resulted in the page for "function creep" being redirected to the "featuritis" page. That makes absolutely no sense and has made me a non-believer in Wiki. Basically, it's mob rule here.
- The previous comment is correct. While however well-intentioned, changes made recently to the Functionality Creep page and its redirect are utterly nonesensical. Functionality Creep is a real process, distict and novel. It should be recognized as as at least a stub page. Information about the positive and negative trends focusing mechanical and informational energy into self-perpetuating, selfish memetic entities and changing purpose from one user to another -- the information about these trends is still arriving. There deserves to be a page where edge-researchers can accumulate data regarding the further validation of Functionality Creep. Kreepy krawly 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to redirect it to scope creep for now - that seems more appropriate. Artw 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- While that may seem "more" appropriate, it remains inappropriate. Functionality Creep is not a concept limited to software. Not at all. It is an all-encompassing concept, which includes the topic of software. So placing the context into the content is the same as putting the cart before the horse. Functionality Creep should have its own place as a distinct topic. Kreepy krawly 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Quotes. These IMHO mostly should be, and probably will be, eliminated from the article eventually. Archiving them here.
- "The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren't there." — Gordon Bell
- "There are two ways of constructing a software design; one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." — C. A. R. Hoare
- "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry [1]
- "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." — Albert Einstein
- "All that is good is simple and all that is simple is good" — Mikhail Kalashnikov
- "In Jeet Kune Do, one does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity." — Bruce Lee
-- 201.19.81.182 14:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted them from the article because they were completely irrelevant, and in any case unecessary trivia. To be honest even insofar as this article is of encyclopedic value (which I would question) its handling of the topic is so clumsy and unhelpful that it probably requires rewriting. Gunstar hero 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)