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.
Thread beginning with comment 552726
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 16th Feb 2013 06:06 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Arguing over coding styles is many times just as stupid as arguing over which OS is best. Whether "you" like it or not, what matters most is (as previously stated) whether the program does what it's meant to do and is stable.

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

In all honestly, a lot of the people who whine about coding style have terrible coding style of their own. Not to mention don't have design/vision to really optimize anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Sat 16th Feb 2013 10:11 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 16th Feb 2013 16:08 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

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

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Nelson on Mon 18th Feb 2013 18:10 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

There doesn't exist a situation where code doesn't need maintenance. Assuming so is a stunning display of a lack of forethought.

I've been in many a situation where I've had to maintain code where the original writer was no longer apart of the company.

It is also important to make a distinction between people who want thoughtful and concise design vs people who complain about the spacing of tabs and the line the curly brace goes on.

The latter group are just a bunch of annoying pedants, but the former is an important end to strive towards.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Mon 18th Feb 2013 20:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

There doesn't exist a situation where code doesn't need maintenance. Assuming so is a stunning display of a lack of forethought.

Of course there is. Just like there are situations where code needs little maintenance, and where code needs considerable maintenance. Assuming all code needs maintenance is the true stunning display of poor assumption. I guess there are people who haven't heard of backwards-compatibility, not breaking user-space as rule of thumb, ABI, etc. Or that the code is simplistic enough that no changes have been needed in ages (if ever).

Reply Parent Score: 2