|
|
|
|
|
by jstimpfle
2986 days ago
|
|
> OOP codebases: -- Almost all major AAA games. Nah. As far as I hear, most of them moved away from OOP a long time ago. "Component systems" have been hot for more than five years. > Almost all GUI systems Come on, what a GUI does vs a non-GUI "realtime" app is pretty trivial. A bit of layouting, routing a few input events. I'm not saying that e.g. building a scene graph or box model would be the wrong thing (there are other ways as well), but yeah... I certainly don't think that inheritance makes GUIs easier. Interfaces/Function pointers/dynamic dispatch? Yes, you might want that for decoupling a few containers of heterogeneous data/behaviour. But that's hardly a monopoly of "OOP", and also you don't need that in most places. The other projects, don't know them. Again, I'm not against abstractions per se (the Stream abstraction is one I regular use, although it does require unwrapping for proper error handling. And I have a constant number of "objects" in each of my programs, namely modules with global data). But OOP culture, especially objects-first mentality and fine-grained data encapsulation, gluing implementation to pristine data - I believe it does only harm and leads to plain wrong program structure and overcomplicated code to jump into all these boxes. I prefer gliding through arrays :-) |
|
Nope, that's just hype. Good ole C++ still rules the day, except for specialized (and smaller in scope and speed needs) games.
>Come on, what a GUI does vs a non-GUI "realtime" app is pretty trivial.
You'd be surprised. A guy is not just "call x program with some flags" as you might believe.
Something like a NLE editor for example or even an IDE can have GUI needs that go far beyond hundreds of thousands of LOC...
(Not to mention that I was referring to GUI libraries themselves, complex beasts on their own, not GUI code as used by applications to build their GUIs).