Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
General Development "Since I left my job at Amazon I have spent a lot of time reading great source code. Having exhausted the insanely good idSoftware pool, the next thing to read was one of the greatest game of all time: Duke Nukem 3D and the engine powering it named 'Build'. It turned out to be a difficult experience: The engine delivered great value and ranked high in terms of speed, stability and memory consumption but my enthousiasm met a source code controversial in terms of organization, best practices and comments/documentation. This reading session taught me a lot about code legacy and what helps a software live long." Hail to the king, baby.
Permalink for comment 552754
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 16th Feb 2013 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:

If nobody needs to read the code, who cares how readable it is.

Presumable it's going to be read by at least one person.

Yes, the person writing it. I don't see a big risk there that he has no clue how to read his own work.

If nobody needs to add things to it, who cares how readable it is. If nobody needs to maintain it, who cares how readable it is.

No, because programming is engineering and there are right ways of doing things and wrong ways of doing things.

I see this argument all the time... One group (which I lean towards), says if it's stable and works then it's stable and works and you can not argue with that. The other group says no it's wrong because they disagree with how something was done.

You can't get around the fact that if the software works it has been engineered correctly because it's doing what it was designed to do. One of the worst things people do is try to fix things that aren't broken. Unless there's an actual need to rewrite something, it's a complete waste to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 2