On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 04:00:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
Indeed. These opinions are my own, and I raised it on the merit
of our
experience last weekend in a 48hour game-dev-jam with a few
former
colleagues (including one who still works at Remedy).
This discussion has come up at remedy in the past, but I don't
think this
is of particular significance to the remedy workflow; the
modules were
small enough to not cause issues, at least not as I left it.
I believe the scenarios I describe are going to be very typical
though, at
least in the game-dev context, particularly when larger volumes
of D code
emerge. I've demonstrated this across 2 separate 48 hour
game-jam's now,
which simulate the environment of a commercial crunch period
quite
faithfully.
I don't believe that typical. We are working with some very big
modules, and we have _no_ problems at all regarding that aspect.
I think that this is a swift for the discussion: discussing about
an issue that it is present _today_ in a commercial user of the
product, or a discussion about an a _potential_ problem.
The worst part of all this mess it is that the proposal ditches
one of the *strong* selling point of D: no code duplication, use
documentation if you want an overview.
I also strongly disagree that this way of coding is not typical:
here at work we are using it without problems with D, and, again,
DDocs are the right way.
I would also add that also here we have a lot of time pressures
for the releases... as in every commercial software company I
know of... ;-P
- Paolo Invernizzi
