Comment on Terms for intentional anti-extensibility
owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 1 week ago
In my experience, the typical solution to this problem is the opposite of what you suggest–making your short-term projects of a sufficient quality to be extensible if needed. So I’d be surprised if you find much on this (intentionally, at least).
That being said, if you’re set on locking down a project, I would run the source through some sort of obfuscator and delete the original. This could be converting it to an intermediate format, or just converting all the entity names to random strings.
TheV2@programming.dev 1 week ago
This is the kind of extreme solution I want to discover with a fitting search term. But personally, I still want to be able to fix bugs and update dependencies. I don’t want to lock down the project, but only the features.
owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Unfortunately, I don’t think anything like this really exists, because it violates good programming principles. Not to say you’re bad for considering it, but there probably aren’t a lot of people working toward the same end. You’ll probably have to resort to personal discipline and/or scathing code comments to remind yourself to refactor things before using them. I may or may not have left comments in my own code calling myself an idiot for not refactoring, or apologizing to my future self. Welcome to the club.
f43r05@lemmy.ca [bot] 1 week ago
Then debug and patch it? Though that’s borderline masochistic at that point.