Or Low C. Or No C. See? There's nothing to C! And so on.
I've changed the working title of the it's-only-some-notes-so-far possible next novel, and so the working codename for it changes from BBC to BB.
Which is scarcely worth a post, except that it made me think about internal company codenames for upcoming software releases and how they sometimes change, which is really idiotic.
As I understand/remember, codenames came into use to foil industrial sabotage in big companies (and just where are those beautiful Chinese industrial spies, I ask you?) and to simplify referring to the next release in small companies. You can't use the number, as you might think, because nowadays the marketeers will dictate some illogical number based on their perception of the market's perception. E.g., what should logically be Version 3.2 will instead be released as Version 4.0, or vice versa. Or, even worse, what should be 3.0 will be released as 3.3, just to fool all those apparently really dense customers. But if internally everyone refers to it as Umslopogaas (anyone get that reference?) (without using Google!), then the marketeers can do their silly stuff without messing up all the internal documents, which always use Umslopogaas. The code names were meant for internal consumption only and never revealed outside the company. (But if any beautiful Chinese spies want to try to wheedle such information out of me, I encourage them to try. Nothing will force me to give away secret company information. No matter how hard they try. Or how long. Or what amazing beautiful-spy techniques they resort to. Why, I'm shocked and horrified and repulsed just thinking about it.)
Later, software giants like Microsoft and Apple started using those codenames very publicly as a way to build the buzz and excitement for their boring releases. Wronghorn will change the world! Jackoffyouare will change the paradigm itself! Wow. Whole new ways to rename or delete files. New looks for old icons. Yawn.
But ignoring Gates and Jobs, real software companies have no good reason to change the codename. Doing so would contradict the reason for using codenames. And yet I've been in smallish companies where exactly that happened. Just when you've got it straight in your head which set of features is associated with Umslopogaas and when it's likely to be released, suddenly you get an e-mail that henceforth that version will be known as Des Moines, while the name Umslopogaas will be reserved for future use. Or not.
Well, I suppose it helps confuse those beautiful Chinese spies. (I can help! Call me!)