I am going to repeat what an Anonymouse Coward siad because I think its a good point:
"Try using that class in a switch statement. You can't. It sucks."
Along with that, I would like to add that if you take your argument to the extreme you could say "Why not only use Assembly Language, you can implement any feature using that!". Of course, that is true, but why bother?
You did in 20 lines of code, what could be done in 1 line of code. That sort of pay-off is what so-called 'syntactic sugar' is gets you. I'd rather read 1 line with a simple idiom, than 20 lines of verbose bland language (this applies to both computer and natural languages)
And don't forget, computer languages are first and formost HUMAN languages.
I essentially means that you do not even need to have declarations. Defining a function or variable is enough to also have it declared. The order that things are defined or which file you define it in does not matter. So, I could put an object in one file, and use it in another without having to "include" it. Or, I could use an object, and then define what that object is later in the same file and it will not cause an error. This is like Visual Basic.
You need to stop thinking like C/C++ is the only way to do things. Its actually a big headache to declare everything before we use it (why not just find the definition and use that?), but we've had it so long that many of us have gotten used to it and can't imagine a better way.
Open Source relys on copyright, it does not exist as an opposite to copyright. If open sourced content was not copyrighted, then there would be no reason for me to follow the rules of the GPL or any other license that asked me to do anything. I would be free to ignore the license. Only because the author retains copyright does he have legal recourse if I violate his wishes.
Actually, you would be surprised how much Quake 3 actually draws that you cannot see. If you turn on r_showTriangles (only available if you start a map using the devmap command) then you will see that some objects, clear on the other side of the level, are drawn. This mainly applys to powerups and map entities. My bet is that a player, a around a corner will be drawn too. It is non trivial to cull everything away that cannot be seen, and most engines take advantage of huge fill-rates and triangle through-put to make up for that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Try using that class in a switch statement. You can't. It sucks."
Along with that, I would like to add that if you take your argument to the extreme you could say "Why not only use Assembly Language, you can implement any feature using that!". Of course, that is true, but why bother?
You did in 20 lines of code, what could be done in 1 line of code. That sort of pay-off is what so-called 'syntactic sugar' is gets you. I'd rather read 1 line with a simple idiom, than 20 lines of verbose bland language (this applies to both computer and natural languages)
And don't forget, computer languages are first and formost HUMAN languages.
You need to stop thinking like C/C++ is the only way to do things. Its actually a big headache to declare everything before we use it (why not just find the definition and use that?), but we've had it so long that many of us have gotten used to it and can't imagine a better way.
Actually, you would be surprised how much Quake 3 actually draws that you cannot see. If you turn on r_showTriangles (only available if you start a map using the devmap command) then you will see that some objects, clear on the other side of the level, are drawn. This mainly applys to powerups and map entities. My bet is that a player, a around a corner will be drawn too. It is non trivial to cull everything away that cannot be seen, and most engines take advantage of huge fill-rates and triangle through-put to make up for that.