Re:Thirteen Years of Bad Game Code
by hinkley on Friday March 31, 2017 @07:17PM
(#14009275)
Much of the time what I'm learning today is how to write code that is obviously correct or obviously wrong to everyone who looks at it. It's not prima facie 'better' than the code I wrote before, but it's more likely for the original intent to survive multiple modifications by others, and emergency fixes are less dramatic.
The analogy I'm experimenting with now is stage performers for Opera or Musical productions. If you see them up close, such as video recording, they clearly 'overact'. They use exaggerated facial and arm expressions to project their performance far enough so the people in the middle or even the back can see what's going on. They are expanding the audience greatly, but admittedly at the expense of those closest to the action. But on the whole it's a better performance.
When I find bugs in my code, introduced by me or added by someone else, I think about how it looked before and try to determine if it was just a dumb mistake or whether I tricked them into it. Maybe I grouped the code oddly, or chose an unfortunate variable name that implied something else was going on. If it's the latter I think about whether I really want to use that pattern anymore. What's tricky is that everyone tries to make their code look like the existing code, so people may be copying the pattern thinking it'll get them a clean code review. If I think the problem is bad enough I may stop and refactor all the places it's used (it only works if you're really, really practiced at refactoring), otherwise I'll just make a note so stop doing that in the future. I might mention it in a team retro.
I want my code to be as plain as it can be and still get the job done. Indeed at this point I positively fume when a 'senior' developer writes clever code, because they should know by now this isn't about them and they're hurting the entire team trying to fluff up their own ego. Look how important I am that you need me to fix all the really hard bugs. Fuck that, and fuck your dazzling bullshit. The only thing that pisses me off more is a manager that thinks 'blame allocation' is a viable management style.
The analogy I'm experimenting with now is stage performers for Opera or Musical productions. If you see them up close, such as video recording, they clearly 'overact'. They use exaggerated facial and arm expressions to project their performance far enough so the people in the middle or even the back can see what's going on. They are expanding the audience greatly, but admittedly at the expense of those closest to the action. But on the whole it's a better performance.
When I find bugs in my code, introduced by me or added by someone else, I think about how it looked before and try to determine if it was just a dumb mistake or whether I tricked them into it. Maybe I grouped the code oddly, or chose an unfortunate variable name that implied something else was going on. If it's the latter I think about whether I really want to use that pattern anymore. What's tricky is that everyone tries to make their code look like the existing code, so people may be copying the pattern thinking it'll get them a clean code review. If I think the problem is bad enough I may stop and refactor all the places it's used (it only works if you're really, really practiced at refactoring), otherwise I'll just make a note so stop doing that in the future. I might mention it in a team retro.
I want my code to be as plain as it can be and still get the job done. Indeed at this point I positively fume when a 'senior' developer writes clever code, because they should know by now this isn't about them and they're hurting the entire team trying to fluff up their own ego. Look how important I am that you need me to fix all the really hard bugs. Fuck that, and fuck your dazzling bullshit. The only thing that pisses me off more is a manager that thinks 'blame allocation' is a viable management style.