Me, pretty sure game dev is going to just be a hobby for me and that I will never try to sell a game, still enthusiastically reading the game marketing articles because they are interesting and it's cool to know the strategies being used to market to me so I can be better prepared…
andioop
I have been using some of the learning resources, specifically this one https://linuxjourney.com/. I hope the video recommendations are helpful to you but I am kicking myself for not adding "also I really hate watching videos and would prefer to read something" to my original post. I have not actually made the switch yet, I want to back up my files first. Bought a new external hard drive with enough space. It was nonfunctional. Had to send it back for a warranty replacement and am waiting on the new drive to show up. Will reply again if I remember once I actually manage to switch over.
[email protected] for people who that link is not working for. (I, personally, get a couldnt_find_post
error.)
Sometimes I have been told my links don't work by some other people, but they work for me logged in and logged out. Wonder if it's that we're using different clients, and if your link would work for the people who cannot open my link successfully.
Wait no, I never had to change IDs. They are all unique and have been since I first defined them. I meant that the ID attribute of my element is the same as its name attribute and also its value attribute. Does any of the advice change given this?
Thank you!
Thank you again so much for your advice. I read it all :)
I am curious if it is viable to do it just pure JS or if I really need to learn some popular frameworks/libraries. I have no idea where this resistance comes from, guessing it's perhaps because "oh wow a whole framework" seems more intimidating than "learn to fix your code in a language you already know a little bit", as someone unfamiliar with frameworks. I should probably learn them anyways.
I do have some of the code commented but I also recently found according to https://refactoring.guru that this is bad?
Final thing: most resources I am aware of are for cleaning up object-oriented stuff. Wondering about resources for cleaning up non-object-oriented stuff and when I should and should not be doing object-oriented stuff, seeing as I did not write this raw JS object-oriented. (Yes, I know you can still kind of imitate some of the design patterns anyways, just curious.)
Also need to find out if if's okay to have the same thing appear twice in the HTML and how to put that in a constant if not, or if it would be better to programmatically generate it because a lot of it is pretty repetitive and the same string everywhere (except for the name attribute sometimes).
Again, thank you so much for your advice! I'll definitely be checking these resources.
It is JavaScript!
I wanted to say just thank you so much for your feedback and help, I really appreciate it. I'll probably try to handle it as an array until final display to the user (tbh probably just me), where the commas and spaces will be used because that's how English works and seeing an output of stringOne,stringTwo,stringThree
without the space would just irritate me a lot.
I am aware of unit testing and know I should use it. I also didn't use any frameworks and I'm not sure what I should use to test it when I didn't use Node.js or React or anything like that (not sure if "framework" is the right word). My only knowledge of them is that sometimes when I fork other peoples' projects I have to do stuff like npm install
and npm run build
and I have a vague overview idea of what those commands do (install dependencies, compile the stuff and run it). What I actually did to test things was just using the website. I let it go because it is small, under 200 lines of code, and probably will not expand very much.
Specifically the actual JS never has the string written down! I grab it from the HTML. Where it does show up several times: the element's name, ID (wonder if I can just wipe it out of the name), often its value, and in the element's label in the for attribute. Not sure what best practice is here.
I actually wrote it just once. It acquired the space like this:
I concatenate a bunch of strings together, and add a comma and space between them so I could get stringOne, stringTwo, stringThree
etc. I later need to decompose that. I remembered I separated stuff with a comma, but forgot about the space following the comma and that is how I ended up having to deal with " NameHere" vs "NameHere" without having actually written NameHere several times in my code. Is there a better way to go about this?
I have also just read my post again and it explicitly contradicts "I actually wrote it just once". Not sure if I did write it multiple times and merely forgot as I typed this comment and claimed to write it just once, or if I just pretended I wrote it multiple times when it was only once so I could simplify explaining my problem. For the purpose of my question though, let us pretend I did write it once. I promise I am aware that strings that are frequently used should be made constant, although I could use more specifics on what "frequently used" is (more than once?) and I'm wondering if you actually should not really use strings at all and always go for constants.
I am oddly charmed by the drawing, did you make it yourself?
While we're here the quote is displaying
like this for me, made with
>>
instead of like this, made with just one
>
Very much appreciated.