Talk:Bleeding edge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curious question: How mature must a technology be for it to be regarded as having outgrown the classification, "bleeding edge"?

Usual answer to such a question is, "how long is a piece of string?", but that's not a terribly useful answer. I understand that the length of time a technology is regarded as bleeding edge is contextually calculated, but if there were some performance indicators, % adoption, or level of sophistication that were enumerated in a response to the question, this would be more useful.

For instance, can we regard the use of wiki in a corporate environment as truly "bleeding edge", given the technology has been in development for a period of in excess of a decade, it has achieved wide corporate acknowledgement as an effective knowledge base, and where Wikipedia is itself 4.5 years old?

---

I thought that bleeding edge means the open end. Like when you are looking at a time frame depecting the process and you finally reach the edge and you see that its end is not closed meaning that there is still stuff to come. In design, this is called to be bleeding into the page. I used to think of it as bleeding into the future with infinite possibilities.

But this was only from my understanding of the expression. It is not something I know as a fact. --Ahmad Alhashemi 10:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of this expression was also informed by the design term "bleed." (As far as I know, elements bleed "off" the page, not "onto" or "into" the page, but that's an aside.) I always considered the bleeding edge to mean so close to the edge of the page, it's almost off the page. Since the "edge" would really be technically just arbitrarily close to the edge, the "bleeding edge" would mean at and off the edge (as it does in design.) 24.110.87.113 23:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe any of this.

[edit] Beta Software

So, is beta software considered bleeding edge? Axeman (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)