00:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] oh, interesting. I was perhaps thinking more of a non-iterator version like `for(int i = v.size()-1; i >= 0; i--) { if(condition(v[i]) erase(v.begin() + i); }` 00:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] v.erase* 00:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] @fokkonaut creating a minimal example can also help *you* find the error 00:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] For loop backward is so simple and smart solution 💯 01:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] @everyone 01:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] Who is first? :) 01:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://discrods.gift/VEBvBmFbECvcW 01:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Discord Mod 01:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <19•Hachigatsu> @everyone 01:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <19•Hachigatsu> Who is first? :) 01:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <19•Hachigatsu> https://discrods.gift/VEBvBmFbECvcW 03:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] @everyone 03:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] Who is first? :) 03:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://discrods.gift/VEBvBmFbECvcW 08:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> ok ty 09:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/932551306214780958/unknown.png 09:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] lmao 10:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] hi Ravie 10:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] ravie :xqcH: 12:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] @deen\: ever made a native benchmark run with the m1 btw? 12:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g. the phoronix benchmark maps could be interestingand maybe in entities on a map like Fly to the Legends 2 without any other players(to get max possible fps xd) 12:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] hi @Souly 13:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] not a real benchmark. but I noticed that fps are much higher than with rosetta2. i don't know if phoronix even supports macos 14:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah rosetta something like an emulator so thats expected i guessthe openbenchmark ddnet site says macos is supported and last time i checked the test suite didnt really check what client version you use, 14:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] I could simply replace \~/.phoronix-test-suite/installed-tests/pts/ddnet-1.1.0/build/ with any build 14:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] (@deen) 14:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] but we have benchmarking built into the client anyway, guess you just need to run it with the demo to get the fps files, right? 14:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] @bencie\: whenever someone has around 300-400fps with nVIDIA card, its 100% a laptop with nVIDIA optimus, the worst shit ever invented 14:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] And the only solution is to buy a new laptop without that.... and seriously suggest exactly that, there is no other fix 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] if he's lucky he can disable it in the bios, but probs not 14:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] Ah i didn't know about that, but good to know. Still, an easy check would be to see if he accidentally locked refresh rate, but it's kinda annoying to even try to troubleshoot with no response other than "i want fps" 14:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] tru \:P 16:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yee 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] ```c++ 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] #include 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] #include 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] using namespace std; 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] class CDoorTile 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] public: 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] struct Info 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] int m_Index; 16:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] int m_Number; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] }; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] std::vector m_vTiles; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] }; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] class CDoorTile *m_pDoor; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] int main() 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] int Height = 10; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] int Width = 20; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] m_pDoor = new CDoorTile[Height * Width]; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] for (int i = 0; i < Width * Height; i++) 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] CDoorTile::Info Data; 16:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] Data.m_Index = 5; 16:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] As i said, this seems to be the weird thing. I dont see how that can happen though 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] in the original, it says your `m_pDoor` array is empty, if I understand it correctly? 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] but you access its first element 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] no, only if found 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] but you do in your case 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] what do you mean? 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] I can't copy-paste code from an image 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] if DoorIndex != -1 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] ```c++ 16:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] int CCollision::GetDoorIndex(int Index, int Number) 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] for (unsigned int i = 0; i < m_pDoor[Index].m_vTiles.size(); i++) 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] if (m_pDoor[Index].m_vTiles[i].m_Number == Number) 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] return i; 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] return -1; 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] }``` 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] DoorIndex is 0, but the m_pDoor array has size 0, if I understand it correctly 16:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] there are programs that get copyable text from images 16:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] so m_pDoor[DoorIndex] is out of bounds 16:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] you mean: m_pdoor[index].m_vTiles[DoorIndex] 16:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] well, but its not 16:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] as you can see, it returned that DoorIndex 16:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] `m_pDoor[Index]` is out of bounds, I mean 16:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] huh? 16:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] But how can it be out of bounds, thats also not possible because m_pDoor = new [height * width], as in tw code 16:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] i dont get how you think that can be it 16:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] I don't get your mindset. you claim that everything is obviously okay, even though you obviously don't understand something: there is a bug 16:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] fair 16:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] in your debugger, it said that the array is length 0. did I misunderstand that? 16:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes and no 16:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] . 16:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] it shows it as correct, including correct values if i hover over m_vTiles 16:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] if i hover over m_pDoor though, it shows m_vTiles size = 0 16:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] can you output m_Index? 16:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yes 16:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] `Index`* 16:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] wait 16:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] (Index cant be out of bounds though, because it gets set using GetPureMapIndex, but let me try real quick) 16:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] thats my index: 102882 16:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] a valid tile position 16:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] okay. I think your debugger is showing m_pDoors[0] when you hover it 16:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] would make sense 16:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] so that's a different element than `m_pDoors[Index]` aka `m_pDoors[102882]` 16:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] yea, so the size IS actually correct and i should be able to erase 16:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] I'm going to eat something, see you later 16:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] as i can also print the values 16:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] alright 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] I can not even loop over the vector: 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] ``` 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] for (std::vector::iterator i = m_pDoor[Index].m_vTiles.begin(); i != m_pDoor[Index].m_vTiles.end(); i++) 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] { 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] }``` 16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] That also asserts. Very weird. 16:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] wrong iterator type? is m_vTiles initialized? 17:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] how do you initialize a std::vector? 17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] with .clear()? 17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] if you called normal constructor should be fine 17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] how? 17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] but if m_pDoor[Index] has not been initialized then you might read out garbage 17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] default constructor should do it implicitly 17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] m_pDoor[Index] definitely is 17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] so i dont have to call anything manually? 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] no, 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] std::vector my_vector; 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] creates an empty vector 🙂 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] yea 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] I don't see the assertion with the code you sent 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] you were supposed to give a piece of code that causes the problem, not one that works 😄 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] how, if thats exactly what im doing? :D 17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] now that i think about it there is one thing that is different in fact 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] that is that m_pDoor gets mem_zero-ed after creating, could that be it? 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] definitely 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] then that has to be it 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] memzeroing a vector will destroy it 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] that's why I said it should be initialized properly 😄 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] :D oh man 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] thinking u have everything correct and then someone elses year-old code comes in :D 17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] i'll check one sec 17:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] where do you store your crystal balls, deen? 17:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] I also need one 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] you sure its called "balls"? 😄 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] Thats sounds soo weird to me 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_ball 17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] nice, it actually was it 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] > This article needs additional citations for verification 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] you think this is about the name? 😄 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] Yeah, I assume 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] lol, definittely not 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] but I can give you another refernece 17:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] But I am not sure, maybe my mindset is blown 17:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crystal_ball https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/crystal-ball?q=crystal+ball https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crystal%20ball 17:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] Okay okay, you right 😄 But imho it still sounds weird 😄 17:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] Gonna use crystal sphere instead 17:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] @fokkonaut\: just save Width \* Height in a member var and check if the index is valid at runtime 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] a error that rust would have prevented :poggers: 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] 102k doors sounds alot xd 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] he can also use a vector and use at() 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] his mod has crazy stuff i think 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] at does bounds checking? 17:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] nice 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] but in debug mode i think even [] does it 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] for vectors 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] all fine, it was because of mem_zeroing 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] thats the door tiles only. 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] well u probs need a flag for it 17:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] Every single tile has a possible doortile :D 17:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] and the only thing i did is now to make each tile holding a vector, so multiple doors with different numbers can be put on one single tile 17:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] i see, then ur map is just huge xd 17:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] since c++11 zeroing any kind of memory allocated with new is stupid anyway 17:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] Nah, that spot is actually at 400/80 or so 17:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] ok there is one exception, you can still allocate non initialized memory by leaving out the parenthesis and having no user defined constructor 17:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g. Object\* o = new Object; 17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] that uses the default constructor, no? 17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] so only primitive types end up uninitialized 17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] (and using `()` does not change that) 17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] the compiler generated one 17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] it does 17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] can you give me a reference for that? 17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] I thought `new Object` and `new Object()` were equivalent 17:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_initialization 17:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] it says that `T object` and `new T` is initialized the same way 17:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] when I write `T object`, then everything non-primitive in my object of class `T` is initialized 17:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] i.e. vectors, unique_ptrs, shared_ptrs, etc. 17:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] I spent some time tutoring students with little C++ experience? 😄 17:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] then they use default initializers or constructors 17:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] ok, what is initialized by `new T()` that is not initialized by `new T`? 17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] i think for classes that contain ANY member that has a constructor, the constructor is called 17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] the compiler cannot just skip it 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] but e.g. struct test { int a; int b; } would not initialize any member when you have a var test t 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] those are also true for `new T` as far as I understand it 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] without parenthesis 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] you say that this is initialized when you write `new test()`? 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes 17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] the default initialization for ints is 0 17:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] interesting, TIL 17:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] (kinda "confirmed" by typing it into godbolt for int) 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] C++ is complicated ^^ 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] that's also why i usually prefer direct member initialization nowadays 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g. 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] struct test { a = ...; b = ...; }; 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] easier to not fuck up xd 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] its the java style 17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] xD 17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] newer c++ versions are also very relaxed 17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] you can just call constructors directly there 17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] example? 17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] CSomeObject a = CSomeObject(1, 2, 3); 17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/blob/master/src/game/client/gameclient.h#L136-L137 17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] I'd call that "basic functionality", not "very relaxed" 😛 17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] i dont think vanilla could copy that code 17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] Tf 17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/blob/cfe5032217fe78c1865a0cb90903c329daf79568/src/game/client/gameclient.h#L136-L137 (permalink) 17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] true xD relaxed in a way that its not too annoying 17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] (@heinrich5991) 17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] heinrich always future proof 17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] hello there irc log readers 17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] i mean creating stack objects anywhere is a relaxing c90's way for me 17:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] where you need to put them at the start of the funcion \:D 17:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] ouch 😄 17:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] true, i always forgot such stuff xD 17:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] (@Ryozuki) 17:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] oh but this is value intialization actually 17:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] no default 17:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] but its still true in the context 17:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] the quotes on this bridge are horrendous 17:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] why doesnt it just use the discord feature instead of an embed 17:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] is reply working already btw? 17:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] or still doing its own formatting 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] doing its own formatting 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] it's bearable but non-native 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] ok too bad. new lines also 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] always 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] were broken 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g. shift + enter new lines 17:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] newlines look good now(?) 17:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] i hope so xd 17:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] @fokkonaut\: are you running your server on a linux VPS btw? 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] as others suggested ASAN and UBSAN should really help you with stuff 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] DDNet had alot of bugs found by them 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] Maybe you can test your server or a 2nd one with less player count or something 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet#using-addresssanitizer--undefinedbehavioursanitizer-or-valgrinds-memcheck 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] Its also relativly easy to use 17:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] or ask @Ryozuki to rewrite teeworlds in rust for you 17:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] then you get panics automatically when there is a bug in your code xd 17:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes but locally i code on windows 17:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] thanks, will look into it 18:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] @heinrich5991 is it wanted that in CCharacter::IsGrounded() the moverestrictionsbelow do not check for whether your are on a laserdoor? 18:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <мистер Макс> @everyone 18:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <мистер Макс> кто успел, тот и съел) 18:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <мистер Макс> https://discrods.gift/VEBvBmFbECvcW 18:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] you cant have uninit stuff in safe rust so 18:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] unless there is a soundness bug in std or rustc itself u are safe 18:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] Doesn't -Wall -Wextra complain about mem_zero ing non PODs? 18:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] PODs reminds me of nier 18:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] pod = plain old data 18:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] stop spamming discord shit nobo 18:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] go away 18:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> so u can do an client with 3 dumies/add 3 dumies in ur client? 18:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] Ah it was a static analyzer warning I remember, not compiler warnings 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] no u 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> Its too hard for you? x) 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] thats a lame bait 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] nah i actually did something like that already xd 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> Where? 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] not public lul 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] Oh nvm, it does exist in gcc nowadays `-Wclass-memaccess` 18:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> Send me 18:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] So if you were compiling with warnings it should have caught that 😛 18:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <ѕα∂ℓσνє🖤> 18:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] -Wall means all warnings but in c++ stuff all means nothing 18:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] :monkalaugh: 18:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] -Wall -Wextra is ilogical isnt it 18:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] There is also `-Weverything` that might actually be what one would think of when you say `-Wall` 18:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] :monkaS: 18:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] I guess they use `-Wall` as more of an "all stable diagnostics of highish quality" 18:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] we need Wdocumentation to finally force correct doxygen xd 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] instead of that system.h crap thats completly useless as is xD 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] reminder that https://wiki.ddnet.tw/docs/ exists 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] why is the system.h crap useless? 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] and its generated every day 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] it describes the stuff that happens in the functions 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] btw did we ever try running clang analyzer on the codebase? 18:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] cuz its not conformant with doxygen 18:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] @heinrich5991 it probably doesn't work well with newfangled ides 18:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] that'd not be a reason for me to consider them crap 18:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://wiki.ddnet.tw/docs/classCComponent.html 18:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] the only documented class 18:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] xd 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] Get the client interface. 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is a documentation I would consider useless 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] that I can write without looking at the code, but only at the signature 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] but it doesnt look cool 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/932689171552813056/unknown.png 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] fixes the classic using ìnt i\`twice 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] is there a difference? 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] wshadow is nice 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] [Edit](https://discord.com/channels/252358080522747904/293493549758939136/932689172072894586): fixes the classic using ìnt i\` twice 18:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] what about this? 18:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] imagine using int for enums 18:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] good c++ stuff 18:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] at least it describes the parameter. but the documentation for the actual method is still worse than not being there IMO 18:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] lmao, i always use strong language to describe stuff, dont take it too personal 18:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] "Get the demo recorder interface" 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] that's what the type signature tells me already 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] Good code documents itself ^^ 😄 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] no, I don't think that always works 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] thats a lie 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] but documenting the stuff that is already in the code is worse than not documenting it IMO 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] i dont agree 18:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] like the classical `int x; // declare an int named x` 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] In other news I think I finally have all of your behaviours modelled in my head 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] documenting it makes sure to the reader there are no quirks you have to know 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] thus its fine if its just get x interface 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] I can tell how you'll react to any single piece of opinion I give you a priori 😄 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] vs a function with no docs 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] u dont know 18:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] u waste time checking it 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] I still don't know after the documentaiton 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] u know if its properly documented 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] the documentation looks like it was written wtihout looking at the code 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] cmon 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] so I still need to check 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] okayyyy 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] good names are often better than endless documentation 18:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] better document all the weird methods and I might get trust in the fact that the non-documented functions do what is said on the tin 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] nobody will document anything so this convo is useless 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] im the only one who tried and i get shit for it 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] xD 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] xdd 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] life bio\: i breath in, i breath out 18:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] this argument is annoying 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] guess where we'd be if I hadn't started including test code? 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] this one too 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] I could just throw up my hands in the air and say "no one will test anything, might as well not do it" 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] but no, I added some useful tests, and now deen added some nice db tests 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] but nobody said ur tests are trash and useless 18:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] and it makes the code better 18:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] I don't say that all of the documentation on the class is bad 18:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] I'm saying that I consider this specific method's documentation bad 18:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] anyway im demotivated now someone else can do it, good stuff about open source 18:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] why don't you want to allow this kind of feedback? 18:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] cuz i dont consider it that bad 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] and ur argument doesnt seem good enough to me 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] i am all in for a teeworlds specification 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] 400 sites 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] like opengl and vulkan 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] okay, so suppose I'd find a method where it has this kind of trivial documentation but weird behavior 18:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] would you agree that I still need to check the code? 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] (when I write these kind of hypothetical questions, I'm being honest and *have not actually checked yet*) 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] if its properly documented it will mention the weird behaviour, otherwise u wouldnt even know its weird behaviour 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] unless ur experienced with the codebase beforehand 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] and docs are specially useful to new coders 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] yes. I think the rust standard library has excellent documentation 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] and that's amazing 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] why are u mentioning rust in this 18:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] but it has little trivial one-liners that just say what the type on the functions says 18:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] because I needed an example 18:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] and I happen to know rust 18:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] I think that the idea of "any documentation is better than no documentation" is wrong 18:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] and even "any correct documentation is better than no documentation" 18:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] so your argument is 18:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] the documentation should stick to the core of what its doing 18:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] and not implementation details 18:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] sounds reasonable to me 18:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] e.g.: "`virtual void CComponent::OnMessage(int Msg, void *pRawMsg)` Called when receiving a network message." 18:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] if more complex, a few examples can help ofc \:D 18:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] this is a good comment. it tells me that it's a *network* message this method is talking about 18:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] that's not said in the actual name 18:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] atleast we know its a network message, and not a custom client message xd 18:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] it might be nice to tell me where I can look up what kind of types there are, and what `pRawMsg` is (a pointer to a struct corresponding to `Msg`) 18:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] but it's a reasonable comment, it tells me something that is not obvious from the name and type alone 18:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] okay 18:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] but would you not say the name of the function is at fault here 18:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] (@heinrich5991) 18:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] i think its just a bad design 18:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] why not call it OnNetworkMessage 18:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] the int also should be a enum 18:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] "`virtual void CComponent::OnReset()` Called to reset the component. This method is usually called on your component constructor to avoid code duplication." this is an example of a not so good comment. it starts by stating the obvious, but doesn't tell me what I'm allowed to do in the method and what not. when is it called? I think it was when you disconnect? 18:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] i get it i suck xd 18:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] i always feel like documentation should explain behavior, but the name must be very intuitive 18:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] when i call System(). i want good suggestions 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] and when i select one of the functions, it will probs show the documentation in the IDE 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] why would you suck because I criticized some documentation of yours 😦 … 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] bro, atleast we have a start 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] (@Ryozuki) 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] sorry its just me its hard for me to accept stuff sometimes 18:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] if everything has shitty documentation, other devs might still add documentation at all 18:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] bcs they see that everything has comments xD 18:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] see why I suck: I got up extremely late today, missed an appointment and haven't even started doing something useful today 18:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] let me fix the last one ^^ 18:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] damn, sounds like both of you have little self esteem 😦 18:57 <+bridge> [ddnet]