On Monday, 14 January 2013 at 20:36:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/14/2013 11:52 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/14/2013 11:24 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Quite a nice read on the coding style used in Doom.
http://kotaku.com/5975610/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-code?post=56177550
Here begins another epic thread. :)
I haven't read the article but came across this: "I personally
enforce the rule
that all method names should begin with a verb unless they
can't." The author
adds that he prefers getLength() to length().
That rule is misguided because not every member function
represents an action;
there are also attributes. Attribute methods should be nouns,
in D or in C++. In
our C++ code we simply say length() (and setLength() if
needed).
Well, not everyone will agree with everything he says. But it
is interesting, and a number of the conventions in there are D
features.
I also found it interesting how some of the conventions used
defies generally accepted C++ best practices.
Apart from a few *style* issues, the only thing the article
contains was mostly hate for the stl.
I understand one might dislikes the stream operators due to the
syntax (myself included), but once you've used them more than
once, and know how to use them, they aren't a problem. The strong
typing they provide is simply unmatched in C++. The article even
mentions that NOT using stream operators was one of their biggest
source of bugs. And Carmack himself replies stating that in
retrospect: StrongTyping > WeirdCode.
There's also hate for stl's containers, stating they are *too
generic*, stating that it is better to use *Only* a HashTable of
<int, int> or <char*, int>. Nobody is stopping you from doing it
with the stl. Not being overly generic is one thing. Not using
something specific because it *spawned* from something generic is
another.
The argument is *always* the same "the syntax is ugly and hard to
use and outside of my comfort zone".
