Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Jan 2013 21:24 UTC
General Development "I was really excited to write this article, because it gave me an excuse to really think about what beautiful code is. I still don't think I know, and maybe it's entirely subjective. I do think the two biggest things, for me at least, are stylistic indenting and maximum const-ness. A lot of the stylistic choices are definitely my personal preferences, and I'm sure other programmers will have different opinions. I think the choice of what style to use is up to whoever has to read and write the code, but I certainly think it's something worth thinking about. I would suggest everyone look at the Doom 3 source code because I think it exemplifies beautiful code, as a complete package: from system design down to how to tab space the characters." John Carmack himself replies in the comments.
Permalink for comment 549083
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Too bad the engine sucks
by bassbeast on Wed 16th Jan 2013 22:44 UTC
Member since:

I'm sorry but it does. There is a REASON why nearly every game out there runs on Unreal while ID tech 4 like the Cryengine is only used by the parent company, and that is because they suck.

You look at how much resources an average scene in Doom 3 used when there wasn't crap going on and you'd have to have a hectic battle going on for Unreal to use the same amount, they blew their resources on pretty lighting without remembering that pretty lighting isn't worth squat if there isn't things to put IN the pretty lighting. There is a reason why you could have the screen filled with demons in Doom 1 & 2 while 3 was nearly all one on one, and that was because ID Tech 4 simply chugs if you pile on the bad guys.

So while I'm glad the coders can be impressed by the code as a gamer I certainly wasn't impressed with the finished product. Doom 3 like Fear 3 is one of those games where I play the previous games all the time, the third one? Never, its just not fun and I find it quite boring.

Reply Score: 2