The Three Stages Of Code Resumption

The eternal GitHub vs GitLab debate summed up in one perfect comic. Sure, Mom says she loves both platforms equally, but we all know where her Git repository really lies. Let's be honest - every dev team claims to be "platform agnostic" until it's time to actually choose where to host code. Then suddenly GitHub gets all the attention while GitLab sits in the corner wondering why its CI/CD pipeline and integrated DevOps features aren't enough to win Mom's heart. The "by a lot" is what kills me. It's that brutal honesty you only get after 3am during a production outage.

The stack of support holding up our broken code is too real! Your janky codebase is somehow balanced on a precarious tower of AI suggestions, desperate Google searches, StackOverflow copy-pasta, that one tutorial from an Indian guy with 240p video quality but god-tier explanations, ancient Git repositories nobody's touched since 2013, and pure dumb luck. The dog (your code) has absolutely no business standing on that wobbly pile, yet somehow it works! Every developer knows that touching ANY part of this fragile ecosystem might send the whole thing crashing down. The compiler isn't impressed, but hey—ship it anyway!

Asked to write meaningful commit messages, Bob goes from "small changes" to existential poetry. Classic overcompensation. The irony is that neither approach actually tells anyone what the code does. Meanwhile, the entire codebase burns silently in the background as the git log fills with philosophical musings instead of "fixed that null pointer exception on line 247."

The perfect meta-joke doesn't exi— When your colleague finally confronts you about your cryptic variable names and spaghetti logic, but you just double down on the chaos by refusing to explain anything. The irony is *chef's kiss* - writing unreadable code AND refusing to comment on it is like bringing a nuclear weapon to a code review. Future maintainers will be archaeologists trying to decipher hieroglyphics written by a caffeinated octopus.

The secret sauce of looking like you know what you're doing in tech isn't the code—it's the performance art. Turn a monitor vertical, squint thoughtfully at some blue-themed IDE while occasionally muttering "scope issue" or "need to commit these changes," and suddenly you're the office wizard. The best part? The more confused you actually are, the more convincingly profound you appear. Seven years as a lead developer and I still do this during standup when I haven't made any progress since yesterday.

The pain of revisiting your brainchild only to find it's been "enhanced" by the new maintainers is a special kind of developer trauma. You pour your soul into clean architecture, sensible naming conventions, and thoughtful documentation—then return months later to find spaghetti code, 1000-line functions, and variables named "temp1" through "temp47." It's like watching your elegant creation get transformed into a coding horror show that would make even Stack Overflow moderators weep. The git blame feature becomes your personal torture device as you scroll through the commit history and whisper "what have they done to you?"