Talk:Program lifecycle phase

Untitled

I have added numerous references, most of them to obvious sources. These are not new concepts, each is very well documented and a part of the computer science ethos. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. You will be doing a disservice to the computer science community.

• Keep -- this article links related articles in a way that increases the value of the linked articles. It is not an independently published concept, but is nonetheless endemic to computer science and a fundamental concept. Seanhalle (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed deletion tag: I suspect it was accidentally added to this article. It does need references though: please have a read of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of these things?

I don't think program lifecycle phase is a notable term yet I do think there is something notable being covered. Things like design time, compile time, link time, run time are very commonly-used; very notable. But there does not seem to be a well-defined term that these things fall within. AI suggests program time phase. But IDK. Still not notable. What do we do with things that clearly are related but the grouping has no name?

The times listed in this article are related to binding time, yet are not _only_ about binding. WRT binding time, we say that binding occurs either early or late, but using the times of this article we can say more precisely when the binding occurs (design, build, run, ...). The times in this article are both more precise time-wise than binding time, yet also less informative than binding time which indicates not just a phase transition, but a functional event/change.

These things are partially covered by but are more than the process life cycle which is covered in execution (computing).

So, I think the title is not good, but I can't think of a better one. :( Stevebroshar (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you are being too kind. I see the whole page as a confused set of sentences. A Google books search for "software lifecycle" gives a good idea of the subject. Software life cycle redirects to a page not about lifecycle. Lifestyle includes maintenance, which is a major issue. This page mixes specification with compilation! The page deserves a rewrite flag. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And I am a kind person :) Thankyou. ... I think deleting this article is not a bad option. But, I'm willing to keep it; to make it better than a confused set of sentences :) Even though some of the listed times (i.e. design time) overlap phases of development, the focus of this article is operation; not development. Well, not development in its broad sense. It does touch on development in a narrow sense; what one might call coding or programming. In particular, maintenance is a development phase but that phase is not relevant for operation. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I see that Software life cycle redirects to Systems development life cycle. As the name suggests, it's not specific to software, but it is about life cycle and I'd say it covers software adequately. (Maybe that article should be titled: development life cycle as I think it applies to any kind of development; or maybe development life cycle (computing) since I guess there might be other kinds of development). ... People often conflate development life cycle with development process. (the first hit in Google books, The Software Development Lifecycle - A Complete Guide, is described as a "guide to all the processes...of a repeatable software methodology" which conflates life cycle with process.) They are intertwined but not the same. And, a search on 'software life cycle' is likely to match 'software development life cycle' and 'software development process', but that does not mean all of these things are the same. ... I think a better name would not include "life cycle" (or "lifecycle"; same thing) because people seem to get confused by that term. ... Thing is, no one uses 'lifecycle' or 'phase' to describe or categorize these operational times. In fact, no one categorizes these times at all, which is why this article has an identity problem. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

These things are times. They each include the word "time". IMO, calling them phases or stages confuses the matter. hmm. The term is "time"! This is accurate yet wordy: Time (computer program operational phase). Stevebroshar (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I would agree to renaming the page "computer program operation times" if you like. I am not sure what that page would say, but I agree with you that time is the keyword. At a general level, l view specification, development, pre-use testing, operation, maintenance and "it wasn't my fault" as the stages in the life of a piece of software. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those phases/periods/times (specification, development, pre-use testing, operation, maintenance, ...) are part of the software development life cycle. That is a different topic. I'm talking about _only_ renaming this article but you call into question the content by saying "not sure what that page would say". I think the content of this article is pretty good; always could be better, but is about something useful and notable. I'm not talking about a re-write. I'm talking about rename. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

About "computer program operation times": that is plural. I think this article used to be plural (phases), but plural is highly unusual for an article name ... unless it's a list article. Based on your input and my reflection, I think List of computer program operational times is good. ... I used 'operational' instead of 'operation' since IMO the latter implies run time only. Operational can cover times when it's not running; a time that is related to and impacts operation but the system may not be operating/running. ... Further, I think that making this a list article is better than naming it something like Time (computer program operational phase) (as I previously suggested) since the notable term is not time. Each notable term is a time duration that ends with 'time'. For example, compile time is notable and build time is notable. But, time is not notable on its own. I think that almost never would someone use 'time' without a prefixing word to mean one of the operational times. In summary, I think the intent of this article and what its content covers today is well-described as a list of times (time periods) of a program's operational modes/phases/states/stages. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Look, you have multiple options and they are all ok. Just go for it and I will support any of them. They are all ok. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. After a bit more reflection (I do that alot), I think Glossary of program operational times might be better. But I have to get to work rn. Later ;) Stevebroshar (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That is fine, go for it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm going to copout for now. This topic does not seem suitable as a mainspace article or a list or a glossary. IDK how it should be integrated into WP. :( I think this article was added to list the operational phases for an old-school type of program like in C. Long ago, that was pretty representative for most programs, but today it's hardly representative. Every program ('project' might be a better scope) has a set of operational phases that it goes through (which could be called a life cycle), but it varies quite a bit by implementation tech and even system design. But/and, each phase can be described as a "prefix time" term. It's an English language thing. We can put time after anything that has a duration: party time, alone time. It's not specific to software. ... So, there's an aspect of a general English language construct as well as a life cycle for each particular project. ... I often can find a way to structure info in WP that fits, but for this, good solutions seem so far away. Stevebroshar (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)