Re: Game announcements on LGDC

[Bert Peers <rat@larian.com>]

Paul Tiseo wrote:

>         Very good point. I think we can maybe tell people which codebases are
> well-documented, but a link to any available source code should be had. I
> think a "desperate" developer might be willing to wade through badly doc'ed
> code if he/she can find what they need. (Obviously, the worse the
> situation, the less likely you'll find it.)
>         Also, I might have hard time with something a "Y2K code spelunker" might
> breeze through. Judging would be difficult.

Hm, not necessarily.  There are still quite a few programmers that never
heard of Dijkstra or anything, and that happily continue writing obscured
switch's, gotos, funky 4-function-combo recursions, etc, all in the name
of optimisation, ofcourse.  It wouldn't be particularly malicious, imho, to
label that kind of contributions as "Warning : unstructured programming" or
something ;) Anything else which does meet a certain standard of structuring,
couldn't be really judged upon, because that would become a matter of style.

Note that I'm talking about strictly functional code here, ie, C.  Someone may
also be a superb C programmer but deliver totally incomprehensible object
schemes when switching to C++ -- their methods rule but you have no clue
what they're for.  That could be "Warning : unstructured design" ? ;)

0.02e
Bert