Talk:Software rot

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Software rot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / CompSci Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Followed link from here. Responses in that Q/A clearly show the (at least one) programming community do not agree at all with the article. Looked at a tidy up but I cannot find reliable references to back up my own ideas or the ones presented - clearly making this original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.252.204 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why was this tag removed without discussion or justification, and without addressing the serious issue of original research in the article? Benlhalt (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page should be removed. It is not only original research, the entire article is incorrect and beyond correction. The author has a poor understanding of the meaning of the Code Rot within the programming community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this article is a mess. Lots of statements without citation and hopelessly mixes two very different aspects: performance and maintainability. I'm new here on Wikipedia; can someone tell me what to do with such an article? My opinion is that is should be deleted and rewritten, but I don't want it to look like vandalism :) Realvizu (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You can always use your sandbox to write a new version of the article from the ground up, and post a notification on this talk page once you're satisfied with it so other editors can review it and provide their opinions and suggestions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody agree that software rot and code rot refer to the same thing, and that the articles should be merged? I personally consider "software rot" to be the main article, and code rot should simply be a redirect. Guinness 11:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The phrase below, "I was going to edit this article to try and fit in my definition of bit rot" is concerning. Wikipedia articles are not a place to publish one's personal views. Benlhalt (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally dont distringuish between bit rot, software and code rot. I was going to edit this article to try and fit in my definition of bit rot, but couldnt really make it fit.

I would describe bit rot (or what wikipedia calls code or software rot) as when 'the program stays the same but its environment changes', maybe someone else can make it fit. (Glenn)

I am not sure that the author of this piece understands what legacy means. Legacy means left over. Legacy is not inherently bad, as this article implies, but could contribute to problems if circumstances change. A legacy system could quite happily go on performing adequately for ever. It is external influences that make legacy a problem, such as requiring a change to the system, or being no longer able to support the infrastructure that it requires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with this. Legacy code is normally used to describe system that use older technology and languages - and does not mean its buggy and in need of upgrade as stated in the article. Unfortunately theres so much thats wrong with the article I think deleting it it the best fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.252.204 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 (talk) Reply

This article seems to be split in two. The first part talks about a program running in an environment (Environment change, Onceability, reinstallation, deteriorating performance...); The second part about code (SHRDLU, refactoring, DLL hell...) However, only the first case falls under the definition given in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskellelephant (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This section refers to a single article (referenced therein) where this neologism is merely proposed. I'm not sure the concept necessarily needs excision, but the section heading could stand some scrutiny. This edit is my contribution to "sofixit"... 96.41.249.21 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this section may in fact need to be excised. In addition to the concern raised by OP, I would have to say that a user losing their password is probably not software rot. Benlhalt (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Contrary to the assertion in the article, I have heard the term "bit rot" used to mean a change in the code itself, on disk, presumably due to hardware error, and on one occasion experienced an apparent instance of this.Bill (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I think that 'bit rot' is different from 'software rot' as software rot is not physically degrading, but just stagnant in nature compared to other software in the virtual environment (e.g. really old versions of java not being compatible with new code because it does not recognize it).

The Wikipedia page of bit rot also has a header saying "not to be confused with software rot" and yet, bit rot is being referenced as if it is interchangable with the term software rot on this page. Correct me if I am wrong. King Piggins (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to the Jargon File referenced in the introduction, Mr./Ms./Mx. Piggins is correct, and the introduction is wrong. Benlhalt (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article seems similar to Software regression and Software aging. Please consider merging the three into one. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

although there may seems similarity, but I think software rot, aging, and regression are different things.

You can consider a plant aging, but its not rotting (yet). A plant sick (regression) but not rotting.

So is software. While software regression and aging tend to impact on performance or features, I think this section here is a bit about "dying" to be completely unusable.

so is the cause are different. While 'regression' refer to 'bug' and 'aging' refers to old practice or old technology used.

CMIIW Tonitegarsahidi (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the plant analogy is relevant. Stevebroshar (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

software aging seems to cover both rot issues as well as long running process issues (memory leaks...). Honestly I've never heard of software aging so I don't know what it normally means other than what that article says. But, the articles do at least partially have different info. ... software regression (which I think should be called software regression bug) is a very different thing. It describes a specific failure that happens due to a software change. Rot is about a general problem; probably multiple issues. Rot will lead to regression bugs. But a regression bug is not always due to rot. Stevebroshar (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Code rot sometimes originates from copying (and subsequently modifying) code (or data) from elsewhere while failing to import updates that were meanwhile done in the source. Vendor branching is a way to deal with this problem. See also

• https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/discussions/1856 and https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/wiki/Branching-Strategy
• https://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.8/svn.advanced.vendorbr.html
• https://blog.bigsmoke.us/2009/07/20/svn-vendor-branches
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/vendor-branch?sort=votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axd (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The multiple issues box was removed without discussion and without resolving the issues. I added it back. Also added the essay-like because article contains original analysis by authors. As issue of original research have not been resolved since 2012, I would recommend reducing the article to a stub. Benlhalt (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

to reflect disagreement in talk page. Benlhalt (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Removed essay-like, I don't think it's appropriate. Style is not the issue, content is... aside from sections beginning with "Suppose", I suppose. Benlhalt (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite says in the section "Challenging another user's edits" that "material that should be removed without discussion" includes "clear examples of original research". Unfortunately, that describes the ENTIRE article, so I'm not gonna do that. I am however interested in opening a frank dialogue about the future direction of the article. Benlhalt (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is the edit that removed the multiple issues box without explanation and without the issues being resolved:

02:07, 17 July 2024 JohnPritchard

There is no description for the edit, and it's marked as minor. This was not a minor edit. Benlhalt (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The references for the article are primarily articles in computer magazines, which are primary sources. There are very few secondary sources. I think this may be indicative of the amount of original analysis in the article. The secondary sources only seem to be referenced in the "Refactoring" section and the "Software Entropy" section. If there is such a paucity of secondary sources even after this article's 10th birthday, that unfortunately speaks to notability. Benlhalt (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

OMG 20th birthday? one more year and this article can drink. Benlhalt (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The introduction says that software rot and bit rot are synonyms, then gives the Jargon File's definition of bit rot. However, the Jargon file itself distinguishes between bit rot and software rot, and gives separate definitions. So, basically, the Intro contradicts the only source used to support it. Thoughts? Benlhalt (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thought: typical. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability in section "Responsibility to provide citations" says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and says that all "material whose verifiability has been challenged" should be accompanied by inline citations. The verifiability of the entire article has been challenged multiple times here by multiple people, beginning in 2012. 13 years is a pretty good amount of time for people to include citations for their contributions. Are the authors available to add inline citations to their edits? Are others able to do this? If not, the material is supposed to be removed. Benlhalt (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is worth noting that it is not possible to provide a citation for original research because it is... original. Many sections have one primary source referenced (used correctly to only establish fact) but the section provides no other citations to support the analysis of the primary source. That makes it look a lot like original research. Inline citations are necessary to mitigate this appearance. That's assuming, of course, that it is just an appearance. Benlhalt (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that these can fall into OR lines. These text might have stayed there because many veteran Wikipedians - as programmers and early users of the Internet, gave their silent approval by not disagreeing for many years, on a subject rarely discussed by mainstream sources otherwise.

Of course, such consensus only stands until someone voices their disagreement (which you and me just did), so feel free to change it boldly. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply