Honestly… I’m not sure at this point. I was somewhat nihilistic before, but these past few years have brought that sentiment to a whole new level for me…

The main limiting factor towards a true communist utopia is one: we’re human. As such, we are unfortunately individualistic by nature, and it’s been proven time and time again that the accumulation of wealth and power only strengthens that sentiment in the vast majority of the population. Under these constraints, I don’t see a path to fully public, decentralized governance and economic equality, someone will always attempt to centralize both.

What can be done is increase regulations, break up monopolies, put on safety guards and ensure better redistribution, and use, of wealth by increasing taxes to the ruling class. So basically yeah, some form of democratic socialism.

But then again, since decisions are made by the ruling class, that is unlikely to happen, it’s not in their best interest.

And as we’ve seen this time around, you just can’t beat stupidity. All the good intentions and overwhelming proof in the world won’t do you any good if people are unwilling to listen. Oftentimes, even the highly educated are unwilling to listen, what chance do you have with the average person?

America’s democratic party is much further right than any left leaning European party. Yet, even in the countries where those are or have been in power, the scary communist vision American propaganda promoted never materialized. People’s lives got just a little better as a whole in most cases. American capitalism is a cancer just as much as communism is an unattainable utopia. The answer, as in most cases, lies in the middle, but that’s something the American electorate really struggles to grasp.

Very mature

Yours is a flawed, extremist view.
How impressive something is has nothing to do with whether or not its source is available. What, if they release it to the public it suddenly becomes impressive?
You can disagree with the method of distribution, but it doesn’t affect the quality of the game.

Piracy being a thing isn’t a strong argument for open sourcing everything, since the barrier of entry is higher than you may expect for non technical people, a barrier that would definitely be lower if any game was freely available and compilable by anyone. Someone will make a free, one click installer, guaranteed.

Now, can you charge for open source software? Definitely.
Will it generate significant revenue in most circumstances? No.

Open source software relies on two methods for funding:

• People’s good will, through donations
• Paid enterprise licenses and training

The former isn’t something one can stably rely on, the latter just isn’t applicable to games.
Again, that model can work for some high profile projects, but in the vast majority of cases, it won’t. Especially not for games.

One can make works of passion and still want to be compensated, that’s what artists do and games are a form of art. You clearly never had to put food on the table with the art you make.

Your vision of everything being open source is a utopia. A noble idea, for sure, but reality is much more bleak.

Just open sourcing the actual engine wouldn’t do much. At best, you’d be able to make it work on newer hardware if problems arise, or port it to other OSs. Great stuff, but not enough when it comes to improving the game, preserving multiplayer, and so on.

There’s a great amount of scaffolding on top of the base engine that any moderately sized game implements, be it through scripting or native code. That’s what I meant by the line between the engine and the game being blurry. If you want to make meaningful changes to the game, you need access to that framework portion, but releasing it would allow for easy reverse engineering of everything else. It’s a difficult balance to achieve.

I could see that being a thing, but the line between the engine and the game itself is a bit blurry in this context. Copyrighting just the assets and content would often not be enough. There will always be a good chunk of game code which isn’t strictly part of the engine but under this model should remain closed source, otherwise people could just bring their own assets.

Frankly I’d be satisfied with companies open sourcing their games after they stop supporting and/or selling them, mostly for preservation and all that. I think that would be a great middle-ground.

Ah yes, closed source, such a dealbreaker, as if 99% of the other games weren’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against open source games, it’s just not a viable monetization strategy for most projects, and people gotta eat. There’s reason why most open source games are either passion projects or old games that have been open sourced simply as an act of kindness towards the community since they generate pretty much no revenue.

I really wanna know where you get your language info and examples from because nearly every single one you wrote in your comments is just wrong.

Program state in Rust isn’t immutable. datastruct.nextState() is not only possible, but perfectly reasonable, it’s exactly how iterators are implemented.

At least it has something to complain about, unlike Karens.

The fact that it can be used as a scripting language doesn’t mean it’s a scripting language. You could use C++ as a scripting language as well, but it would suck.
C# even supports native compilation nowadays, not just JIT, so it’s definitely not a lowly scripting language.

Anyways you’ve got options. Go may also be one of them if you want GC, I forgot to mention it.

I’ve found working with Rust and Bevy to be quite pleasant. If you’re used to working with ECS, I suggest you at least give it a go.
Rust is as functional as C++ 20 with ranges and views is, which is to say it isn’t. Not sure where you got that impression from, but while it does borrow some ideas from functional languages, it’s still very much a procedural one.

Zig doesn’t have headers, nor inheritance. Again, not sure where you got that from, but Zig is basically a modern C, so there’s no OOP anywhere, let alone multiple inheritance.

As for what to use, I think they’re both viable alternatives. I lean more towards Rust, but that’s just due to familiarity. Odin also looks like a viable option, if you don’t mind a smaller ecosystem.
If you want a garbage collected language, then I’d go for C#. Despite its historic reputation as a Windows only language, it’s been cross platform and open source for roughly a decade at this point. I find it great to work with.

I’m not happy about it, but it makes sense.
They’re trying to avoid polarizing issues so as to not alienate undecided voters. Either way a democratic presidency would be better for LGBTQ people than a MAGA presidency, so I’m not too upset about our issues being put on hold for a few days to achieve that. I imagine they’ll become a little more vocal about them once they’re actually in the White House, and if not we’ll still be better off regardless.

Transgender people are a minority amongst minorities, catering to them while potentially alienating so many more voters is not a wise strategy. Reasonable trans voters will already vote for Harris because they know what’s at stake.

I don’t like it, but if it means keeping fascists out of the office, I can live with it.

I find this to be true for every new language I try out. Since every language has a different way of doing things and gives me a new perspective, in the long run they all end up improving my programming style as a whole. I always end up integrating the best parts of each into my next project when possible.

Experience will always be more valuable than any set of rules these kind of books tout as “the way things are meant to be done”.

Oh for sure. I have nothing against getters and setters when they’re justified, but in the case of bare fields with no validation like that example it’s just annoying.
Also stuff like this just grinds my gears (oversimplified example again):

class IntegerAdder {
    private int a, b;
    public IntegerAdder(int a, int b) {
        this.a = a;
        this.b = b;
    }
    
    public int get_sum() {
        return a + b;
    }
}

Just make it a bloody function.
You may say it’s silly, but I’ve genuinely found code like this in the wild. Not that exact code snippet of course but that was the spirit.

It really depends on the context frankly. I did say it was a crappy example ;)
Try to read this snippet I stole from Clean Code and tell me if it’s readable without having to uselessly jump everywhere to understand what’s going on:

public class SetupTeardownIncluder {
  private PageData pageData;
  private boolean isSuite;
  private WikiPage testPage;
  private StringBuffer newPageContent;
  private PageCrawler pageCrawler;


  public static String render(PageData pageData) throws Exception {
    return render(pageData, false);
  }

  public static String render(PageData pageData, boolean isSuite) throws Exception {
    return new SetupTeardownIncluder(pageData).render(isSuite);
  }

  private SetupTeardownIncluder(PageData pageData) {
    this.pageData = pageData;
    testPage = pageData.getWikiPage();
    pageCrawler = testPage.getPageCrawler();
    newPageContent = new StringBuffer();
  }

  private String render(boolean isSuite) throws Exception {
     this.isSuite = isSuite;
    if (isTestPage())
      includeSetupAndTeardownPages();
    return pageData.getHtml();
  }

  private boolean isTestPage() throws Exception {
    return pageData.hasAttribute("Test");
  }

  private void includeSetupAndTeardownPages() throws Exception {
    includeSetupPages();
    includePageContent();
    includeTeardownPages();
    updatePageContent();
  }


  private void includeSetupPages() throws Exception {
    if (isSuite)
      includeSuiteSetupPage();
    includeSetupPage();
  }

  private void includeSuiteSetupPage() throws Exception {
    include(SuiteResponder.SUITE_SETUP_NAME, "-setup");
  }

  private void includeSetupPage() throws Exception {
    include("SetUp", "-setup");
  }

  private void includePageContent() throws Exception {
    newPageContent.append(pageData.getContent());
  }

  private void includeTeardownPages() throws Exception {
    includeTeardownPage();
    if (isSuite)
      includeSuiteTeardownPage();
  }

  private void includeTeardownPage() throws Exception {
    include("TearDown", "-teardown");
  }

  private void includeSuiteTeardownPage() throws Exception {
    include(SuiteResponder.SUITE_TEARDOWN_NAME, "-teardown");
  }

  private void updatePageContent() throws Exception {
    pageData.setContent(newPageContent.toString());
  }

  private void include(String pageName, String arg) throws Exception {
    WikiPage inheritedPage = findInheritedPage(pageName);
    if (inheritedPage != null) {
      String pagePathName = getPathNameForPage(inheritedPage);
      buildIncludeDirective(pagePathName, arg);
    }
  }

  private WikiPage findInheritedPage(String pageName) throws Exception {
    return PageCrawlerImpl.getInheritedPage(pageName, testPage);
  }

  private String getPathNameForPage(WikiPage page) throws Exception {
    WikiPagePath pagePath = pageCrawler.getFullPath(page);
    return PathParser.render(pagePath);
  }

  private void buildIncludeDirective(String pagePathName, String arg) {
    newPageContent
      .append("\n!include ")
      .append(arg)
      .append(" .")
      .append(pagePathName)
      .append("\n");
  }
}

That’s what I was talking about.

The moon would disappear though, so you’d notice by looking at the sky if it wasn’t obstructed by clouds.

Yeah that was essentially what I was referring to (referring to your edit).

I generally dislike stuff like (crappy example incoming):

void do_stuff(int count, bool cond) {
	function1(count);
	function2(b);
	function3();
}

void function1(int count) {
	for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
		...
	}
}

void function2(bool cond) {
	if (cond) { ... }
	else { ... }
}

void function3() {
	...
}

I’m not a fan of this kind of code fragmentation.
If all those actions were related and it could have been just one thing, retaining a lot more context, then it should be one function imo.
If by not splitting it it became massive with various disconnected code blocks, sure, but otherwise I’d much prefer being able to read everything together.

If splitting the functions required producing side effects to maintain the same functionality, then that’s even worse.

Also (taking go as an inspiration), I (personally) find this very hard to read

Agreed. Go’s implementation of errors as values is extremely noisy and error prone. I’m not a fan of it either.

You can always ignore an error return value and pretend that the “actual” value you got is correct.

Then that’s a language design / api design issue. You should make it so you cannot get the value unless you handle the error.
I’m of the opinion that errors should be handled “as soon as possible”. That doesn’t necessarily mean immediately below the function call the error originates from, it may very well be further up the call chain. The issue with exceptions is that they make it difficult to know whether or not a function can fail without knowing its implementation, and encourage writing code that spontaneously fails because someone somewhere forgot that something should be handled.

The best implementation of errors as values I’ve seen is Rust’s Result type, which paired with the ? operator can achieve a similar flow to exceptions (when you don’t particularly care where exactly an error as occurred and just want to model the happy path) while clearly signposting all fallible function calls. So taking your example:

try {
  res = try_something()
  res2 = try_something_else(res)
  res3 = try_yet_something_else(res2)
  return res3
} catch (e) {
  // check which error it is and handle it appropriately
  throw_own_exception()
}

It would become:

fn do_the_thing() -> Result<TheValue, TheError> {
	res = try_something()?;
	res2 = try_something_else(res);
	res3 = try_yet_something_else(res2)?;
}

match do_the_thing() {
	Ok(value) => { /*Do whatever*/ }
	Err(error) => { /*handle the error*/ }
}

The difference is that you know that try_something and try_yet_something_else may fail, while try_something_else cannot, and you’re able to handle those errors further up if you wish.
You could do so with exceptions as well, but it wasn’t clear.

The same clarity argument can be made for null as well. An Option type is much more preferable because it forces you to handle the case in which you are handed nothing. If a function can operate with nothing, then you can clearly signpost it with an Option<T>, as opposed to just T if a value is mandatory.

Exceptions are also a lot more computationally expensive. The compiler needs to generate landing pads and a bunch of other stuff, which not only bloat your binaries but also prevent several optimizations. C# notoriously cannot inline functions containing throws for example, and utility methods must be created to mitigate the performance impact.

I’ve found it’s mostly two things: readability (ironically) and performance. I’ll describe a few crude examples, but I won’t get too much into specifics, otherwise I might as well write another book myself.

The performance part is simple: its excessive reliance on polymorphism and the presence of several levels of abstraction just doesn’t allow for good code generation. I’ve seen 10x+ performance improvements by dropping all of the above, with often minimal loss in readability; on the contrary, oftentimes the code became more readable as well.

The readability part is harder to explain; not only because it depends on the codebase and the problem at hand, but also on the coding style each programmer has (though in my opinion, in that particular case it’s the programmer’s problem, not the codebase’s).
I like to think of codebases as puzzles. To understand a codebase, you need to piece together said puzzle. What I’ve found with Clean Code codebases is that each piece of the puzzle is itself a smaller puzzle to piece together, which isn’t ideal.

Functions

They should be small and do one thing

I generally disagree, not because those ideas are wrong, but because they’re often too limiting.
What often happens by following those principles is you end up with a slew of tiny functions scattered around your codebase (or a single file), and you are forced to piece together the behaviour they exhibit when called together. Your code loses locality and, much like with CPU cache locality, your brain has to do extra work to retrieve the information it needs every time it needs to jump somewhere else.
It may work for describing what the code does at a high level, but understanding how it works to make meaningful changes will require a lot more work as a result.

Don’t repeat yourself

Once again, it makes sense in principle, but in practice it often creates more problems. I agree that having massive chunks of repeated code is bad, no questions about it, but for smaller chunks it may actually be desirable in some circumstances.
By never repeating code, you end up with functions that are over-parameterized to account for all possible uses and combinations that particular code snippet needs to work with. As a result, that code becomes more complex, and the code that calls it does too, because it requires you to know all the right parameters to pass for it to do the right thing.

Exceptions

Exceptions are just bad. They are a separate, hidden control flow that you constantly need to be wary of.
The name itself is a misnomer in my opinion, because they’re rarely exceptional: errors are not just common, but an integral part of software development, and they should be treated as such.
Errors as values are much clearer, because they explicitly show that a function may return an error and that it should be handled.

Classes, interfaces and polymorphism

I have lots of gripes with object orientation. Not everything needs to be an object, not everything needs to be polymorphic. There’s no need to have a Base64Decoder, much less an IBase64Decoder or an AbstractBase64Decoder. Base64 only works one way, there are no alternative implementations, a function is enough.

I’m a lot more on the data oriented side of the isle than the OO one, but I digress.
Object orientation can be good in certain contexts, but it’s not a silver bullet.

Encapsulation for the sake of it

Let’s say you have something like this:

class Point {
	public float X, Y;
}

With the Clean Code approach, it magically becomes:

class Point {
	private float x, y;
	
	public float get_x() {
		return this.x;
	}
	public float get_y() {
		return this.y;
	}
	public void set_x(float x) {
		this.x = x;
	}
	public void set_y(float y) {
		this.y = y;
	}
}

Why? Who the hell knows. It makes absolutely no tangible difference, it only makes your code longer and more verbose. Now, if a value needs validation, sure, but oftentimes this is just done regardless and it drives me insane.

Abstract classes for everything!

• “You’ll never know when you’ll need to add another implementation, right?”
• “You don’t need to know the underlying implementation”

The problem with wanting to create the most generalized code in advance is that you end up stuck in abstraction hell.
You may as well not need the ability to have arbitrary implementations, but now you need to plan for that.

Not only that, but it also makes reasoning about your code harder: how many times have you had to step through your code just to figure out what was being executed | just to figure out what particular concrete class was hiding behind an abstract class reference?
I myself, way too many, and there was often no reason for that.

Also, the idea that you shouldn’t know about the implementation is crazy to me. Completely encapsulating data and behaviour not only makes you miss out on important optimizations, but often leads to code bloat.

There’s more but I’m tired of typing :)

Take a look at these if you want more info or someone else’s view on the matter, I wholeheartedly recommend both:

• It’s probably time to stop recommending Clean Code
• “Clean” Code, Horrible Performance

You can now review reviews