We need more release-quality open source games! With this project, I hope to show some real-world use cases of Godot 4 features.
I've worked hard to make the docs and code understandable and well organized.
I've been using Unity for a few months now and what is most frustrating is how lazy and unprofessional the company presents itself.
They basically found that the Asset Store is such a huge source of revenue for them that they now completely over-leverage it and abuse the community for profit. For the few things they do ship, they routinely break things for backwards incompatibility or literally just ship half complete "products". If you want to do anything meaningful in Unity you either have to build it yourself from the ground up or buy plugins.
An example: their AI navigation system is so lacking in features, they haven't updated it in nearly two years, and the last ship they did was literally half broken and buggy for several use cases.[1]
Also their help desk is currently broken, replacing random text with "$$anonymous$$" and deleting replies[2] :)
This comment is definitely a venting comment, but I didn't want it to come across like Unity is pure ass. It has a lot of really great things too. I've especially enjoyed their abstractions around vectors, quaternions, cameras, and local/world space. You can do a lot of really complicated operations that look and feel great, without having what would normally require some pretty advanced math knowledge that is beyond me
I have been using Unity for around 5 years now, and have come across many issues, from lacking documentation, weird APIs, breaking or forever-in-experimental packages, to issues with implementing best-practices for software development.
However, its core is really robust and powers almost all VR experiences and startups, such as Gravity Sketch and Arkio. Which is why I still find myself drawn to Unity.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Sony, Nintendo apparently live in another world, given how many of their studios or VR/AR endevours rely on Unity, or give it tier 1 support on many of their projects, while everyone on HN complains about it.
I guess they get special builds no one else has access to. /s
Being used often for projects with cheap production budgets and being good are orthogonal concepts especially when talking about the video game industry where cobbled together middlewares for one shot development is the norm. Unity became tier 1 supported because it was widely used by indie projects. Implying the reverse is mistaking cause for effect.
In fact, Unity is actually the example I generally give of a product which is both widely used and terrible. It's better than it used to be. At some point, it was downright terrible. I remember Wasteland 2 running worse than a modern AAA game while looking like a ten years old game at launch.
To be blunt, given the new licencing terms of the Unreal engine, I don't think you should ever use it unless you are already really familiar with it.
I've been following lemmy [0] for a while, a federated reddit alternative in the same spirit as mastodon. It's still very small, but I think as monetization pressure on reddit increases, people will look for other places to post and this might be one of them :)
Their website mentions the Fediverse. lemmy is a federated network that is completely separate from the mastodon/diaspora/... network, right?
Since I already have an account on a mastodon instance I first thought I can just connect to lemmy instances using that but that is apparently not possible.
Yes, you can. After their last release you can follow Lemmy communities with Mastodon and add comments to posts. Just enter the URL of a Lemmy community in your search bar to find the account profile. And in case that doesn't work you might try search for @[CommunityName]@[lemmy.instance] (there are some issues to be wrinkled out still).
One of their stated goals is to show people how to write a compiler in Elm, and another is to allow programmers familiar with Elm to hack on the Elm compiler without needing to learn Haskell.
I don’t think this holds up anymore. Tooling has come so far.
I have never in my life been as productive as I am inside of a Vue/Tailwind code base at this point.
One of my clients is a fairly vanilla Rails 4 app (which is arguably a friendly place to be - although slow) and it’s not even close. I miss Vue and having a full “app” environment on the front-end side constantly. Jumping back and forth between these projects is like going from a hot and steamy comfy jacuzzi into an icy cold pool.
> I have never in my life been as productive as I am inside of a Vue/Tailwind code base at this point.
For what kind of app? Crud, frontend to a SaaS, something else?
I am still finding form-heavy apps needing frontend+backend form validation to be faster to write entirely server-side. Which is painful as more and more I have field types that are best off as JS widgets, and enhancing server-rendered forms is a pain.
Otherwise, the point is that you won’t have to jump back and forth—you can just stay on the backend. I’ve actually never used Stimulus Reflex, but in LiveView, I’m writing very small bits of JS maybe 2% of the time.
I agree with you, but it took a long, long time to get that good and comfortable with react (in my case) years actually since I don't only do frontend.
For people who haven't already climbed that mountain and learned a new "language" I agree with GP. This could be a game changer.
My only regret is that for a while now JavaScript had basically been the standard. As good a development as I think this is, it will really in more fragmentation and less general purpose devs.
Nevertheless I think it's good, and web assembly was always going to do this to JavaScript ecosystem anyway.
You make it sound like a big audience is the only thing that matters. The linked post talks about a personal website as a digital identity. Giving people a link so they can find you online is a good reason to have a website, even today.
Besides that, making your own website is rewarding in many other ways - Being creative, getting thoughts out of your head, pinning down certain arguments you tend to repeat, etc.
> Giving people a link so they can find you online…
…does not always work. When I give people a link they can't click on, they type it in the search bar. And not even in full, they tend to strip the http://www and .com ends. And you can't click on a piece of paper, which is where my CV typically ends up on.
Last week, I interviewed with someone who said he googled me. All he found was a "little GitHub page". My full name ranks my personal web site first or second on every search engine I've tried, yet he couldn't find it. Is the Google bubble that strong?
Your personal website, btw, is really great, and that interviewer missed out. I program mostly Python in scientific contexts, but it's great to have your perspective on some larger questions of programming style and technology.
When I searched for your name, it came up second in Google, first in DuckDuckGo and first in Bing. Not sure how the interviewer managed to miss it, both the site and your GitHub profile are in the top two results for your name.
The first aspect you mention (handing out a link so people can look it up) is like an online business card that's "free form" in nature. That makes sense if you are a creative professional and the website is a showcase of your creative ability.
But otherwise: If you apply for an job, say in finance, you'll be asked for a resume, because people can't be bothered dealing with information that's extraneous to what goes into a resume.
If you apply for a job as a coder, you'll be asked for a link to a github repo, because people can't be bothered with looking at anything other than your code.
If you apply for a research role, you'll be asked for a link to where your publications can be found, maybe on researchgate, because people can't be bothered with looking at anything other than your peer-reviewed publications.
Do you see the pattern here? It's another example of the balance between information and attention shifting towards too-much-information/too-little-attention. -- And personal webpages aren't good at dealing with the too-little-attention part of the equation, so there is rarely a demand for giving people information about yourself in the "free form" style.
The second aspect you mention: If you produce some webpage content, you can always decide whether you want to see it as a diary and not put it up online, or whether you want to see it as something that should be out in the public, and do put it up online. It seems to me like a contradiction to prefer putting it online, but then not to care about whether it actually gets seen or not. (Especially considering that one gets into a lot of liability everytime one puts something up online).
> If you apply for a job as a coder, you'll be asked for a link to a github repo, because people can't be bothered with looking at anything other than your code.
In my experience, this is not true. I setup a website to describe software projects, and my role in them. It was, per my current boss, a key factor in getting an interview. Browsing github repo's, imo, is much more bothersome than reading a well crafted project page.
It does what I need (for instance decrypting Amazon purchases), runs locally and will only process trusted input, not to mention it seems to be gradually migrated to Python 3. I’m not overly worried.
For an upcoming competitor, security is only a feature if it also does everything else I need it to.
