Gaming

22076 readers

7 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

561

Don't forget to make a 2nd save file just in case. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry I don't getting your point . You start off by agreeing that you don't like the extra complexity that the update statements give. Then do some pseudo code of something entirely different where we all already agree is not an issue.

Then at the end your conclusion is that it is totally feasible. Why? You still didn't adress the problem of updating the state

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

My point was "are state machines really that complicated? Isn't it just something like this pseudo code and a return value from your functions?"

Basically I feel like this is a 2 step process but you seem like you either know more than I do or have a different philosophy about how this would be implemented, so I want to understand what I'm missing