I see. That’s not what “security by obscurity” means in my world, but the expression certainly sounds like it could. It’s not like I own the meaning of words, so it’s interesting to hear what it means to others. Could also have been meant figuratively, I suppose.

In what way does “security by obscurity” apply here?

There is a different side to this equation too. Locally sourcing production. There is no surplus stock that needs to be thrown unopened. No shipping of some part that solves some particular problem. Replacement parts can be made for things that would otherwise be cheaper to buy new and dump the old one, etc.

I was.

Maybe this was an intentional leak. Now the Nintendo lawyers can claim they’ve used stolen proprietary code?

I suppose. If you are doing things against TOS and you suspect just might happen, by all means.

The license is with regards to “GOG Service”, not “GOG Contents”. You need the former to get access to the latter, sure. But what isn’t clear about this?

You still own the contents (though, as mentioned, individual titles may have additional blablabla). If you don’t think this distinction makes sense when it comes to GoG vs Steam, then maybe you’re just discussing something entirely different?

That’s for the gog service itself.

What do you mean? Native Linux isn’t that relevant these days. Most games run well through Proton, and some even better than on Windows. Judging by the protondb entry, you wouldn’t notice on Linux that this was a windows game: https://www.protondb.com/app/2142790

It’s not the same thing? Emulation of older consoles improve and mod the experience. Upscaling, custom textured, etc

Anything special you needed to do? I have the HTC Vive, and I’ve tried a few times over the years, without any success. Last time was about 2-3 years ago.

SteamVR works on Linux? What headset, if I may ask?

My biggest gripe is the lack of respect/understanding for the importance of data models and clear domain boundaries.

Most things that end up as “technical debt” can be traced to this. Sometimes, it’s unavoidable, because what the data models changes, or the requirements of the domain, etc.

And, it’s very innocent looking differences sometimes. Like “We know that the external system state will change from A to B, so we can update that value on our side to B”. Suddenly you have an implicit dependency that you don’t express as such.

Or, things like having enum that represents some kind of concept that isn’t mutually exclusive. Consider enum values of A and B. Turns out this really represented AZ, and BP (for some inherent dependency to concepts Z and P). Someone later on extends this to include ZQ. And now, suddenly the concept of Z, is present in both AZ and ZQ, and some consumer that switches on concept Z, needs to handle the edge case of AZ… And we call this “technical debt”.

I did eventually yes. Thanks for asking. I was exhausted yesterday, and upon reading my comment again, I get the downvotes. Being a second language doesn’t fully explain the wrong tone there. The article was a lot more insightful and in depth than I had mistakenly assumed.

After reading it tho, it seemed a lot more focused on performance than I think would be warranted. But that could be due to different concerns and constraints than where I’m used to working. I’d focus more on the mechanisms that best expresses the intent, and although they do discuss this well, the Venn diagram for the appropriate use of exceptions and error codes don’t overlap as much in my world.

And, it’s not like I’m arguing that they are wrong. It’s an opinion on a choice for a tradeoff that I only think, while allowing the possibility of being wrong, might miss the the mark. Stack unwinding is by its nature less explicit for the state it leaves behind. So it shouldn’t be a question of either error codes or exceptions, but which are most appropriate to express what, and when.

Even for Rust, where monads are preferred and part of the language to express and handle error codes, I would say that the statement of “newer languages like Rust don’t allow the use of exceptions”, seems incorrect to me. Something like panic!("foo"); coupled with panic::catch_unwind(|| { ... } }); I believe would unwind the stack similar to that of a throw/catch.

Anyways. Thanks for reminding me to actually read the post. It was well worth it, and very insightful.

I’m just going to comment on the face value of the title itself, and make assumptions otherwise.

• Exceptions are control flow mechanism. I.e. that can be used for code execution flow, in the same application.

• Error codes are useful across some API boundary.

Does this adequately cover whatever it is they figured out was a good tradeoff?

There are so many good games being made these days. I don’t understand why people still reward bad practices.

Isn’t it called “rogue-like” because that last part of metaprogress was not in rogue? Maybe I’m confusing it with roguelite.

I’ve used both PS4 and Ps5 controllers. You don’t need to do anything except to plug it in.

I’ve only had issues in one game (Minishoot Adventures), where the solution was to disable controller support layer that steam comes with.

I haven’t tried Bluetooth, as I don’t mind the cable.

If they cannot report on things like this, you might wonder why they don’t report on important things like inequality, disappearing workers rights, etc, etc.

Can I ask in which way it helps? Or perhaps, what in particular it helps with? For example, the “feeling guilty” part is very different from “motivation evaporates”, but remedying either, or something else entirely, can be considered helping.