The Four Most Terrifying Words In Software Development

Content What we say What we mean Horrible hack Horrible hack that I didn't write Temporary workaround Horrible hack that I wrote It's broken There are bugs in your code It has a few issues There are bugs in my code Obscure Someone else's code doesn't have comments Self-documenting My code doesn't have comments That's why it's an awesome language It's my favorite language and it's really easy to do something in it. You're thinking in the wrong mindset It's my favorite language and it's really hard to do something in it. I can read this Perl script I wrote this Perl script I can't read this Perl script I didn't write this Perl script Bad structure Someone else's code is badly organized Complex structure My code is badly organized Bug The absence of a feature I like Out of scope The absence of a feature I don't like Clean solution It works and I understand it We need to rewrite it It works but I don't understand it emacs is better than vi it's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war vi is better than emacs It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war IMHO You are wrong Legacy code It works, but no one knows how XCquitVESCESCC I don't know how to quit vi

The most sacred commandment in all of software development, passed down from one traumatized generation to the next. You could have a function held together by duct tape, string, and a prayer—running on hardware that's one static shock away from becoming a paperweight—but the second someone says "maybe we should refactor this," everyone suddenly becomes deeply religious about not tempting fate. The code might be an eldritch horror that makes junior devs cry, but hey, at least it works . And in this industry, that's practically a miracle worth preserving.

The irony of a customer service rep telling a programmer to clear the cache is like a civilian telling a bomb technician to cut the red wire. "Have you tried clearing your cache?" is literally our first debugging mantra, right after turning it off and on again. It's the sacred incantation we've been mumbling under our breath since our first stack overflow error. Next they'll be telling me to check if my computer is plugged in or suggesting I update my browser. The audacity.

The ultimate type-checking nightmare! Boolean questions should return true/false, not "maybe", "sometimes", or the dreaded string response. It's like asking "Is the server running?" and getting back "Well, it's Tuesday and Mercury is in retrograde..." Somewhere, a strongly-typed language is crying. The face perfectly captures that moment when you realize you'll need to add an extra validation layer because someone thought "Yes" and true were interchangeable. Classic rookie move that haunts even senior devs during code reviews.

Content When you have a problem. Just Google it Google engineers trying to fix Google made with mematic ProarammerHumor io

OMG, the AUDACITY of developers who think they're sooooo clever turning a perfectly respectable if-else statement into that one-liner ternary abomination! 💅 Look at Fancy Pooh in his tuxedo thinking he's ROYALTY because he saved three whole lines of code! Meanwhile, the rest of us peasants have to decipher your "elegant" syntax during code reviews. I'm literally DYING at how we all pretend this makes us sophisticated when we're just trying to impress each other with code golf! 🙄