By a 20-Year CodeProject member and Former MVP_
As a developer who’s been part of the CodeProject.com community for over two decades, the idea of its closure feels like a shock. For years, this site has been a haven for developers, with thousands of phototype code projects ready for download, coming with authors' own advice on how to use it.
I became a member of CodeProject.com back in the early 2000s. It was on CodeProject that I discovered a treasure trove of knowledge, downloading over years 100+ code projects to kickstart my own work. Some of the downloaded projects put me right on the proper path and evolved over time into very successful projects. I owe much of my professional growth to this platform.
I would estimate over time, I’ve read over 1,000 articles—some deeply technical, others inspiring—that helped me solve problems, discover new tools, and increase my level of knowledge.
Now, as rumors circulate about the potential shutdown of CodeProject, I am trying to understand why it’s struggling to survive in an era when tech giants dominate the stock market.
CodeProject mattered because of articles of decent quality
Unlike today’s platforms, where quick answers and snippets dominate, CodeProject was modeled on authored articles, providing depth and a broader perspective of software engineering topics. Before GitHub became the central repository of open-source collaboration and before Stack Overflow turned Q&A into popular science, CodeProject was the go-to platform for code and tutorials.
There are 2 dominant policy directions in “IT community websites/forums”:
- Inclusion. Sites declare as a primary policy to include publishing of text of authors of all levels, to encourage people to join the profession/ guild.
- Editors/Review. Sites enforce strict publishing editors review policy to filter/modify/improve texts before publishing on the website.
Sites that predominantly go for “Inclusion” policy declare as a target to introduce/encourage people of all levels of knowledge to publish texts. Regardless of noble goals, in practice, such sites are overwhelmed with SPAM and are practically unusable and uninteresting for reading. There would be like 1000 articles on the topic “Introduction to HTML”, and while some are probably good, many look like random copy-paste from the internet, of very bad quality. Such sites tend to waste your time because before reading something you need to filter out all the spam articles of low quality.
Some sites go for an “Editors/Review” policy in which the assigned Editor is Coaching/Modifying proposed text with the intent to improve its quality before publishing. But, in practice, on some websites/forums, it seems that those editors were some kind of volunteers/enthusiasts who are native speakers of the version of English that is official in the country they live in, but have insufficient technical knowledge (or interest, or time) to understand the topics, so they would be rephrasing sentences “to improve English” and “presentation style”, and after several such “improved” sentences that “edited” article would be telling completely different story and giving different conclusions from original. Discussing with “editors” is a waste of time, so I keep my personal blog/website, where I am “the editor”, and where I publish texts exactly the way I think they should look.
CodeProject was mostly oriented toward "Editors/Review", where articles would need to pass peer review and editor's approval with some editing modification of texts. That resulted in filtered articles of decent quality, in limited numbers. Modification of texts by editors was most of the time minimal/acceptable and once a member is on the level of MVP author, he/she would have the right to publish directly without the need for editor approval.
What Went Wrong?
While the tech world has seen platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X achieve billion-dollar valuations, CodeProject guys needed to close. Looks like the digital market is changing:
- Shift to larger platforms: Many developers now turn to platforms like Stack Overflow, GitHub, and Medium for similar resources, but I hardly see any gain in that.
- Revenue challenges: CodeProject relied on advertising revenue. It looks like that didn’t work well for them. Looks like the business behind the site collapsed.
- Shifting Community Trends: It looks like today’s developers often prefer quick answers to deep dives. I personally somehow doubt that can be a successful trend in the long run.
It’s hard to believe that in an era of billion-dollar valuations and mega-acquisitions, a platform as valuable as CodeProject couldn’t make it. Companies like Meta and Microsoft are snapping up platforms with massive user bases, but this site/community is not of interest to them.
A Final Hope
The tech industry often witnesses comebacks or reinventions. If a strategic partner steps in, the site might still find ways to thrive. Unfortunately, so far CodeProject hasn't managed to attract buyers like Microsoft or Meta. I keep hoping that someone—be it a tech giant or a passionate entrepreneur—will recognize its value and give it the second life it deserves.
