Talk:You aren't gonna need it

message: The existing title is inconsistent.  Either be consistently formal or consistently informal.  
* Coherent and right acronym: "You ain't gonna need it." (YAGNI)  
* Coherent but wrong acronym: "You aren't going to need it." (YAGTNI)
* Incoherent: "You ain't going to need it."  No one would ever say that!  Artificial.  ain't is informal, but going to is formal.
* Incoherent: "You aren't gonna need it."  No one would ever say that!  Artificial.  aren't is formal, but gonna is informal.
If you have "gonna", you have to have "ain't", as well.
"you aren't gonna need it"
11200 hits at Google
"you ain't gonna need it"
17900 hits
The title needs to be changed, and I certainly advocate for consistent informality: "You ain't gonna need it."  Pet peeve: artificially stiff and formal and pretentious language in encyclopedia articles, which serves to distort and misrepresent instead of clarify. -msh
:You aren't gonna need it is how it was originally formulated. The title should not be changed, we can't just change slogans to fit our grammatical preferences. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?YouArentGonnaNeedIt Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Aren't or Ain't, along with 'going to' or gonna

message: Isn't it "You AREN'T Gonna Need It"?
:I once heard that people prefer ain't to aren't, though I don't know why. -- Taku 01:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:It would be "You aren't GOING to need it." if you want proper English, but that just doesn't have the same impact.
:Isn't the c2 wiki a definitive source on these terms? It uses the proper english, and I would disagree that the proper english has less impact. Cedear 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead should have both alternatives. I added "You aren't gonna need it" and referenced with c2 wiki. Fridek (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't or Ain't

message: Jon (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness Of Acronym Components 

message: Isn't there at least a good aspect in this philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theups (talk • contribs) 
:No, there is none whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.128.161 (talk) 
:Of course there are, c2:DavesRealExampleWhereThinkingAheadWouldHaveHelped and c2:YagniExceptions. -- intgr 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Aspects 

message: This should be related to Occam's Razor.
Metaxal 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occam's Razor 

message: "A logical conflicting factor is the notion of completeness, which tends to define missing options, or facets, mostly likely to be needed: for example, among features which allow adding items, deleting items, or modifying items, completeness could be used to also recommend "renaming items".  The critical impact of completeness can be seen in some types of wiki-collaboration software which can add or delete image-files, but not simply rename images, at all, even after several years of software upgrades."
I wonder what wiki engine they are referring to? :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouch 

message: This should be a very simple decision.  YAGNI is a term programmers use, and it has an agreed meaning. Whether you LIKE that meaning is not relevant. This is part of the vocabulary of modern programming and as such should be included in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.116.90.198 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Decision 

message: The point of the article is to define what the term means.
The Balancing Concerns section is editorial in nature, and presents one person's view about whether YAGNI is appropriate. I don't think it belongs in the article. 
Eric.Gunnerson (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Balancing Concerns section does not belong 

message: As of 2016/04/17, I removed the neutrality banner as per the discussion below. (DanBrotsky (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I'm a little concerned about this sentence in the Context section: Used without continuous refactoring, it could lead to disorganized code and massive rework.  It is presented without reference, and thus appears to be original research.  This sticks out in what otherwise is a well-referenced article.  I suspect that this sentence comes from one of the references, but I am not familiar enough with them to cite it properly.  Perhaps someone more familiar with XP literature could add the reference? DanBrotsky (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 2023 comment: Spaghetti code has more 2 more meanings over the original "a piece of code full of GOTO operators, that's hard to read" idea. OkiPrinterUser (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research in Context? 

message: About:
      XP co-founder Ron Jeffries has written: "Always implement things when you actually need them,
      never when you just foresee that you need them."[5]
At first glance, the wording seems a bit muddled. You can see that you need something, and you can foresee that you *will* need something. But how do you foresee (which implies the future) that you need something (now)? Or maybe that was deliberate, to highlight the very absurdity which that wording itself suggests. Toddcs (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He means "when you foresee that you will need them", but left out the "will". Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an obvious error in Jeffries' sentence. I've added [will] to the quote. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. Andre🚐 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Jeffries has written... 

message: The article mentions the hurdles of supporting a large app (let alone "software package"). However, it doesn't address the other reason to dismiss features as YAGNI - the availability of other products, especially ones already designed for those "extra" features one wants to implement. Simply put, there's no mention of the UX, User eXperience part - overburdening, alienating the product in question's end users with various new buttons OkiPrinterUser (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing context