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.
Thread beginning with comment 549038
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Good article
by lucas_maximus on Wed 16th Jan 2013 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good article"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Look I am sorry you have a crap codebase, but the fact remains the same ... you can write bad code in any language.

Edited 2013-01-16 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Good article
by henderson101 on Wed 16th Jan 2013 16:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Good article"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Look I'm sorry you like VB, but the fact remains you can do better in just about any other language that targets .Net/CLR. VB is shit and it always was. VB lets you do completely unsafe things and even when you tighten it up to require as much safety as possible, it still lets you do ridiculously stupid things. A bad programmer can write reasonable code in C#, because there is a lot of padding to protect them, not least proper type safety. A bad programmer will hack together a horrible solution in VB.

This has nothing to do with the code base. I've dealt with very competent programmers using VB, and the C# translation is still far less unsafe due to the greater type safety and lack of silent casting and type munging that VB does in the background.

Edited 2013-01-16 17:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Good article
by lucas_maximus on Wed 16th Jan 2013 17:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Good article"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Look I'm sorry you like VB, but the fact remains you can do better in just about any other language that targets .Net/CLR.


Utter rubbish. In fact in some circumstances VB actually has some advantages over C# (XML parsing for example).

VB is shit and it always was. VB lets you do completely unsafe things and even when you tighten it up to require as much safety as possible, it still lets you do ridiculously stupid things. A bad programmer can write reasonable code in C#, because there is a lot of padding to project them, not least proper type safety. A bad programmer will hack together a horrible solution in VB.


Absolute crap, I have seen C# programmers just wrap stuff in Try ... Catch statements when encountering a null pointer exception. This is pretty much the modern equivalent of VB6's "On Error Resume Next", rather than deal with the condition sanely.

Or my personal favourite, catch the exception and throw e.Message ... so you lose the original exception.

This has nothing to do with the code base. I've dealt with very competent programmers using VB, and the C# translation is still far less unsafe due to the greater type safety and lack of silent casting and type munging that VB does in the background.


I am sure I could find quite a few other languages that are far worse. VB.NET is fine if you take some care about what you are doing.

Just look at the dailywtf.com, there is bad code is eveyr language and the two factors that always rear their heads

* Mis-management
* Moronic Team members.

Edited 2013-01-16 17:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2