I don't think anyone assumes when they take the cheap shipping option that they are eating a 10% chance the package never shows up. Nor mis-matched packages. Nor sudden calls from collections. Nor being re-labeled in the database as a 'distributor.'
Author gave time for them to work out the bugs between each attempt, and, seems each attempt went worse.
Classic post-2010s-era support quality.
Example 1: Changing `s` to `displayScore` doesn't fix the problem the code is using `p1`, `p2`, `p1N`, `p2N` AND defining a new `p`. WITH multiple ternaries and 3 mid-function returns.
Example 2: Reasonable, but now you have two functions with similar signatures. Reducing the number of indentation is always good.
Example 3: Creates ANOTHER layer of indentation. Without add'l context the code looks like it could be reduced to a series of inverted conditions with happy/golden-path style sequential if-s instead of 5 indentation deep.
Example 4: Pet peeve and chided by a lot of linters. Empty blocks are generally frowned upon. (You say: "If not equals DO" not "If equals don't do anything ELSE")
Example 5: Good in the context of testing, annoying in that it is a function with a single line. You'd probably be better off stubbing the User class all together. I mean you're already providing a User-type object.
Example 6: Great, 10/10 love it. Would remove the {} and just toss the Throws on the if-statement line itself but that's personal taste.
Example 7: Not awful, but I like to front-load my variable declarations so you can get error-handling out of the way at the start of the function then use those variables to do the computation later. More up front about saying: "Here are the items I will use later in this function"
Example 8: Probably not a simple refactor. If you aren't going to update all the locations in which an "Amount"/"Currency", you're creating an artisanal class for a single use.
Why am I code reviewing this article? Shoo.
Of course you'll need new maps, unit tokens, and scenarios custom to your clone.
I know it is easier said than done, but, rightsholders sit on obscure IP like a dragon on a hoard. If they DID make a new game based on this Squad Leader game, it probably wouldn't be the same game.
Quick edit from reading another post: If one just wants to play VASL looks like what one would want. Reimplementation of the rules in another engine, boom.
And I'm sure we can do scientific research on robot animals just as well as normal animals, just a different kind of research.
Seems like it all works out.
Some upset Twitter users isn't their entire customer base, but as a part of the story I enjoy reading the comments and how the community is responding.
They agreed that the current manifestation (signed URLs to JPEGs) are scammy, but that is one use of the NFT concept. In gaming, NFTs can represent in-game items with utility and unique attributes that change as you use them. They can be used across multiple games and sold/traded on an open marketplace.
What are the incentives a publisher/developer has for putting anything on a blockchain?
Company B wants nothing to do with Company A's digital assets, and Company A does not want to make transitioning away from their own game easy.
NFTs will never be used in gaming, outside of gimmicks (and all the current attempts talk more about the NFTs instead of any form of actual gameplay.)
Automate the rote software engineering so it's built upon a shared, healthy, secure, etc codebase... Leaving only the harder, more-fun 1% for us to noodle on instead.