Youtube comments of mean mole (@meanmole3212).
-
4500
-
671
-
299
-
276
-
271
-
256
-
208
-
208
-
134
-
130
-
111
-
106
-
104
-
101
-
82
-
74
-
73
-
67
-
64
-
61
-
59
-
48
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
35
-
What can you expect when we've been hearing all these recent years how everyone should learn to code, software developers earn millions and how there's a huge shortage of developers so everyone gets hired. Some countries like mine even went as far as started making teaching programming part of the curriculum for grade school kids.
Don't get me wrong, these avenues should be as open as possible for those kids who are interested, but if we are going to make programming like every other job on society, the rose-tinted talk about programming career needs to stop because the hard reality is that only the people who are super dedicated may earn this legendary success.
So often you hear this complaint: why do I have to do programming side projects on my free time to apply this job, it's not like doctors are doing medical experiments on their free time when they finish work day? The answer is because the market is now flooded with people applying for these jobs, and in the mix there are these programmers who DO NOT MIND working on their free time with "work related" projects.
Welcome to the world of programming, I hope you truly enjoy what you do, because if you don't, well, good luck.
32
-
30
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Abayake @justadude8716
You don't need to "create a new engine", you build the stuff you need for your game. Working alone or small, it should be obvious that it does not make sense to start building overly ambitious game projects. Instead, you evaluate your previous experience in relation to the game project you are about to make.
Don't know yet how to program basic textured polygons using shaders? Spend some time learning and experimenting with them until you feel confident. Want to make a large yet primitive 3D game world where you can interact objects with a mouse click? Well, you better have reasonable understanding on visibility culling optimizations and space partitioning algorithms so that your vision of a large world does not collapse instantly due to performance issues when you start casting rays and testing collisions to your objects. Again, you don't need the latest and most complex best solutions, you can save time by implementing "good enough" simpler solutions as long as they satisfy your game's needs. It's not that much work if you have strong previous experience implementing various game related systems from the ground-up because you have quick access to references that will get you going fast.
You can happily build your "collect the 10 sticks on the screen to win" games with existing solutions, but once you start to expand the scope of your game the way YOU want, you will hit a wall because you don't know what the fuck is actually going on in your game application since you did not build most of it yourself. This is not such a big issue with Unity, Unreal and even Godot because there's a larger community that has most likely encountered and solved the issues already that you will encounter during the development of your game.
That's why I said Rust may not be the right choice for game development at the moment, but it can be a decent choice if you keep things within reasonable scope and know what you are doing. I would not even consider switching to other languages now because developing with Rust is so pleasant and it saves my time due to its strict nature.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@mmstick Oh it happened but it went like this:
RefCell, Rc, unsafe, clone, clone clone, RefCell, borrow_mut, unwrap, unwrap, unwrap, except, panic, except, unwrap, unwrap, dyn, dyn, dyn, unwrap, dyn, dyn, RefCell.
"Wow, my app is converted to Rust now but why is it so complex, slow and crashing all the time? Dude this language is the worst!"
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xloppyschannel4881 I get it, if someone does not like it, there's no need to use it, because it will most likely result in negative productivity. In a same way someone could argue that I should switch from Rust to Haskell, but I won't, because in that case the friction is just too overwhelming for me personally.
However, I feel like you did not understand my point about the "cargo check" command. Compiling Rust program from scratch may well take 3 minutes or more, but you are not doing that 3 minute compilation 60 times a day because with "cargo check" you can continue developing valid code as it will tell you in advance WILL the program compile if you attempt to compile it later. Yes, you need to compile your program if you want to run it and test it, but you can write completely solid code without running it constantly just with the power of compiler errors. This is more true in Rust than C, and it is even more true in Haskell than Rust.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1