John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014)

Re:John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014) by ctrlrsf on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @09:13AM (#12121509)

Long functions might read easier but you lose some testing precision. I think recent focus on testing has lead to shorter functions with as little responsibility as possible. When short functions fail a test you have smaller surface area to look for the cause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014) by leojfc on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @09:59AM (#12121777)

Doesn’t this imply the need for a new language feature? So that well-defined sections of inline code can be pulled out, initial conditions set in a testing environment, and then executed independently.

I guess this could trip up if the compiler optimisations available when considering all the code at once means that the out-of-context code actually does something different in testing...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014) by chimprich on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @12:19PM (#12122612)

Pull out well-defined sections of inline code that can be executed independently for testing? Sure, that's breaking it down into functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014) by MereInterest on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @12:30PM (#12122686)

I think there is such a feature. In most languages, these are called "functions".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on Inlined Code (2014) by virtualized on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @10:18AM (#12121904)

Game developers don't test, they debug. That's why he draws wrong conclusions like "inline everything manually".

[ Parent | on HN ]