Talk:Creeping featurism

Creeping featurism
Why can't this just be called Feature Creep? I think the term is used far more often than "creeping featurism." -- thealsir

I don't think this is a spoonerism. A spoonerism is where you switch the beginnings of two words. From the wikipedia page on same, "The lord is a shoving leopard" -- you take "loving shepherd" and make it "shoving leopard" by swapping the initial sounds. "Creeping featurism" isn't swapped from anything -- it merely indicates that the features are creeping in. The initial form isn't "feeping creaturism" or anything. [so changed] Delirium 15:57 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I am not a native english, but i do not see how this "The term is often spoonerized as feeping creaturism" makes the term creeping featurism more clear. :Leuk he 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--SCooley138 09:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I almost died when I read the break down for the spoonerism! I am not complaining, please no one delete this! Feep feep!

feeping creaturism looks like a spoonerism of creeping featurism to me, based on the examples and definition given by Wikipedia. Nowhere does it say it has to result in real words.

Too many features is perhaps best called feature overload.

Let me guess... edit by vi fan, edit by emacs fan? ;) - Fredrik | talk 23:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)\\\

Feature creap,

MY personal definition is: when you are doing more than you need to because you dont have a well defined scope, such as when building a kitchen, you decide to remodel the dining room, then while you are at it you might as well fix up the bathroom. this is also true in software development.

Fair Use
To my knowledge, a copyrited image can be fair use only if there are no free images that fulfill the same purpose. I'd feel more comfortable if a non-copyrite program were used as a screenshot instead.

link to prefixitis removed
Article is a cand. for deletion, and I left a long screed on the talk page as to why I support this deletion. It's a neologism, and the practice it refers to isn't even conceptually a feature, and I don't see the point of including a reference in this article to every coding practice that differentiates a 10 million line program from a 100 line program. Some systems are large because they solve complex problems or integrate with a wide diversity of other systems. Not every large program is automatically an example of creep. If we convey that sense, we debase what this concept usefully invokes. MaxEnt 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilbert Character
Is it worth mentioning that there is a Dilbert character called "The Feature Creep"? He's a rather disheveled man who gets into projects and blatently adds useless features for the sake of it. -- VederJuda 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

related quotes
This whole section looks like original research, as there's little to no evidence that these quotes have ever been applied to feeping creaturism outside of this article. Can we agree to delete them, or at least delete anything without a published, reliable reference to that exact quote being used in respect to software creation? -- nae'blis 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first two quotes (Bell and Hoare) are relevant. The rest are more philosophical and probably could be deleted. --Lost Goblin 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Apple's Copland
Some mention should be made of products that never made it to market due to creeping features. Apple's Copland is a good example as everyone in the company added their pet projects to Copland to ensure it would not be underbudgeted.

This is also a key reason for the long development time for Windows Vista.

Rename to "Feature Creep"?
Any reason why this shouldn't be renamed to "Feature Creep"? it's by far the more accepted term. Artw 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)