Revision as of 20:09, 7 April 2014 edit David Gerard (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users 214,586 edits →See also ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:29, 5 May 2014 edit undo Chris the speller (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 894,065 edits m →Potential problems: per WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,5, replaced: poorly- → poorly using AWB Next edit →
Line 12: ==Potential problems== At the extreme end, soft-coded programs develop their own poorly- designed and implemented scripting languages, and configuration files that require advanced programming skills to edit. This can lead to the production of utilities to assist in configuring the original program, and these utilities often end up being 'softcoded' themselves. The boundary between proper configurability and problematic soft-coding changes with the style and nature of a program. Closed-source programs must be very configurable<!-- but generally aren't! -->, as the end user does not have access to the source to make any changes. In-house software and software with limited distribution can be less configurable, as distributing altered copies is simpler. Custom-built web applications are often best with limited configurability, as altering the scripts is seldom any harder than altering a configuration file. <!-- Witness the scores of CMS systems that are so much harder to work with than a bunch of html files in www/data! -->

Softcoding: Difference between revisions