I’m sure everybody has seen that diagram showing the diff between today’s shooters and the games then, how then it was huge expanses filled with secrets while today you are led by the nose from one set piece to the next in a straight line? Well anybody who likes the former should BUY NOW Redneck, duke 3D and Blood, they can be had from GOG quite cheaply and just for joining you can get something like 6 games for free just as a thank you for trying them out which includes warsow and Ultima 4. To me the measure of whether code is “good” or “bad” is really VERY simple: Does it do the job as intended? Does it waste resources or use them well? is it stable?Īnd I would have to say no matter how “pretty” the code is Ken Silverman’s Build engine, which not only powered Duke but 2 of my fav games of all time, Redneck rampage (who couldn’t love a game where you shoot a titty gun and fling dynamite while drinking beer and eating moonpies while listening to Mojo Nixon?) and BLOOD, which riffs all the cheesy horror tropes of the 80s (you even start in the Phantasm funeral home) while giving in both insanely huge levels with tons of secrets Similarly, a well structured post with good grammar and punctuation makes it much more coherent and thus easier to convey your thoughts. This might apply more often to science than game development but I still think it’s a relevant point. I’m not a programmer but as a scientist I use other people’s code for my work and the readability of their code has a great effect on the usability and performance of my work. Well said but you have to remember that your first point about readable code has a direct relationship with usability and performance, which you mention at the end. So I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s good to be reminded about preferred programming practices, just as long as we don’t forget the other criteria (usability, performance (if applicable), deadlines) It’s a bit like grammar Nazi’s who love to correct peoples comments but rarely read deep enough into those posts digest the content being explained. On the one hand it’s great to promote readable code, but sometimes I think people get too hung up on what they deem as perfect syntax and can sometimes miss the point of those clever optimisations. I have a love/hate relationship with articles like these.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |