Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(1 edit) (+2)

No offense, a lot of this seems like cargo cult practice you happened to absorb without thinking about it critically.

Git is only one of many version control systems, and it happens to be among the most complicated. It’s justified by its distributed nature, but game development is almost never distributed, it’s centralized in the developer’s HQ.

Your description of the blob makes sense, but it’s not what the article states:

Procedural-style design leads to one object with a lion’s share of the responsibilities, while most other objects only hold data or execute simple processes.

This isn’t just untrue, it makes no sense - procedural-style software almost never has objects to begin with. Instead, there are generic functions that operate on data, thus a clear separation. This is how I write my software, and any antipatterns or bad code in there are just that, not to do with the procedural style. If you want a good example of a procedurally-written game engine, I recommend checking out Sauerbraten. I checked it last before they moved the minimum requirement to GL2.1, and I found the source pleasant to read.

Technology is changing so rapidly that developers often have trouble keeping up with current versions of software and finding combinations of product releases that work together

I haven’t seen this to be a problem. Technology may be changing rapidly, but who said I should be keeping up? Technology should approach people, not the other way around.

Others have already commented on semantic versioning.

but once done, you will never want to go back to the stone age

Oh, you’re one of those.. well now yes offense. Sorry, but I’m not pathetic to the point of not being able to type make in my command line. If my team doesn’t have the mental capacity to check whether something works then they’re not worth putting up with.

This one is very important. Let’s be honest, we are not very good programmers.

This is supposed to be a bad thing.. why are you accepting this, instead of improving? You may call it technology intelligence, but really it is human stupidity. At what point do you stop pulling code you yourself will never check? Have you heard of the recent colors.js case? Will you also pull in a library to add two numbers? Where do you draw the line?

Ultimately, this is all reminiscent of the kind of character that favors quantity over quality. But, I am not that. I don’t dumben myself so that my machine or some random people on the other side of the planet may know better than me. I improve myself, and so, I improve my work.

(+1)
This is supposed to be a bad thing.. why are you accepting this, instead of improving? You may call it technology intelligence, but really it is human stupidity. At what point do you stop pulling code you yourself will never check? Have you heard of the recent colors.js case? Will you also pull in a library to add two numbers? Where do you draw the line?

A ludicrous slippery slope, particularly given that the original statement said little more than "other people might have made things that you can use."  They can draw the line wherever they damn well please.

Slippery slope arguments are fallacious only when given without evidence.

People do draw lines, but their lines only ever appear as they age and stop being purely hedonistic. This “convenience” movement, on the other hand, is driven only by hedonists, and so doesn’t draw any lines, which is my entire problem with it. Each new generation pushes the line further towards progressively pathetic, petty behaviour before normalizing it. My evidence is all of history from when science became people’s religion.

Before talking about convenience, think about whether it’s actually justified, and what you’re losing because of it. Programmers are short-sighted individuals, so it’s no surprise they don’t think to do so.

(1 edit)
Before talking about convenience, think about whether it’s actually justified, and what you’re losing because of it. 

The high-handed moralizing does not interest me, but this line is valid, and is really the only thing you needed to say in the first place.  Yes, all software development is about tradeoffs.  In this case, weighing the balance between the control, comprehension, and self-reliance of implementing something yourself, and the speed and convenience of using off-the-shelf parts.  Of course, the exact ratio one prefers for one's own projects is neither a measure of character nor the remit of other developers.

Hi, I’m sorry if you don’t appreciates the off-the-wall tone. My intention was only to make it easier to read and not to hurt anyone’s feeling. Though, I appreciate your feedback and the contradictory opinion of your answer :).