[ArtificialSoldier]

Quote

I was contemplating making a game in Unity 5 or unreal engine 4. But I was told as a solo person its not a good idea if I want to make money.

People like this would disagree (he sold his company for $2.5 billion, if you weren't aware). If you have a good idea and can create it then you should do fine regardless of the industry you're in.

[john5220]

ArtificialSoldier, on 15 June 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Quote

I was contemplating making a game in Unity 5 or unreal engine 4. But I was told as a solo person its not a good idea if I want to make money.

People like this would disagree (he sold his company for $2.5 billion, if you weren't aware). If you have a good idea and can create it then you should do fine regardless of the industry you're in.

Yeah almost forgot about minecraft. That dude is amazing what he managed to accomplish.

[Liontrue1]

Because it is. Just like learning a language, you quickly come to a point where you can use what you've learned to far to learn more without needing much help.

[WolfCoder]

Quote

So why do people say Website Programming is easy?

Because everyone seems to have low standards and accept such websites despite complaining all the time.

[depricated]

I think andrew's point needs to be reiterated: the basics of HTML and CSS are easy, but using them properly is something few people master. Well formed markup is a beautiful thing. I wish I could show some of the terrible markup I've fixed.

If you ever feel the need to have an empty div on the page, you've already done fucked up. Your markup should never contain something like <div /> except AT DESIGN TIME when you're still fleshing it out.

Seriously. I see that shit way too often. And it's sooooo bad.

[Damage]

none web developer question, why's an empty div tag bad?

[depricated]

it's unnecessary clutter. If you need it for reference in code behind or javascript, it's better to check for it and insert it. It's just inelegant and can add unneeded headache when interacting with the page via code.

[WolfCoder]

Most of the people who go on about code being beautiful or elegant are also some of the people I've yet seen finish a project on time.

[jon.kiparsky]

WolfCoder, on 17 June 2015 - 08:49 PM, said:

Most of the people who go on about code being beautiful or elegant are also some of the people I've yet seen finish a project on time.

I have to say that the most productive and effective programmers I've worked with have all cared very deeply about making their code beautiful and elegant, and also about making sure it's very well tested. The reason for this is simple: technical debt is a real thing, and unless it's carefully managed, it will cripple a codebase, given enough time. "Beauty" and "elegance", as I see them, are just ways of characterizing code which minimizes technical debt.

By contrast, I could point to some gigs where the Powers That Were felt very strongly that "elegance" was a luxury they couldn't afford. One of them, I came in on a six-month contract, and left three years later. When I left, the project was just six months out from delivery.

I can imagine that there are people who sit around and dither for months and say they're making the code "more beautiful" - those people should be forced to work under Scrum, on two-week sprints. Two sprints with nothing delivered, and there would be some changes made.

[Damage]

Thanks

[depricated]

B9's recent bout with bad markup is a perfect illustration of

andrewsw, on 13 June 2015 - 05:51 PM, said:

... the point that 'the basics of HTML and CSS' are easy. There are so many people that latch on to the idea that HTML and CSS are easy and they don't study. Both require study.

This is clearly someone who knows the basics and never bothered to learn more. Their markup was several hours of work for her to fix, I'm guessing (she doesn't detail time spent, but later says she reduced 200,000 chars to 37,000) it was a few hours at least.