bevy_snake VS golangci-lint

Here I implemented Snake game with just pixels. I did it after following Snake with Bevy tutorial to see how much more or less difficult it would be. In my experience the code turned out a little bit longer, but conceptually simpler.

I don't quite know about that. Rust has lots of features that make it possible to write code that's nearly impossible to read with human eyes, code which REQUIRES the use of additional tools to understand. For example, you can define implementations for things which implement traits IMPLICITLY, essentially giving things methods that they don't define in their own implementation. Figuring where the hell the implementation is, even with Rustdoc, can be a HUGE pain, since the definition of the thing doesn't contain its entire implementation. For example, the bevy game engine in rust (e.g. where does the method 'snake_eating.after' get defined and what does it do here?: https://mbuffett.com/posts/bevy-snake-tutorial/)

Yeah bevy is a good way to learn rust. You could try making a snake clone using this tutorial to get your feet wet.

#+AUTHOR: granitrocky #+TITLE: Literate Programming Example -- Snake #+OPTIONS: H:3 toc:2 #+STARTUP: overview #+MACRO: setup-file (eval (if (eq org-export-current-backend 'html) "#+SETUPFILE: https://fniessen.github.io/org-html-themes/org/theme-bigblow.setup")) {{{setup-file}}} # Local Variables: # eval: (add-hook 'after-save-hook (lambda () (setq-local filename (org-html-export-to-html)) (rename-file filename "docs/index.html" t)) 0 t) # End: * Purpose This document is an attempt at putting a complete Bevy game and Design Document in a single file. We will be creating a document based on [[https://mbuffett.com/posts/bevy-snake-tutorial/][this tutorial]] ** Why? The reason for this workflow is to keep all our documentation and code in a single place. It's practice for creating a living org doc that will be my standard for creating projects in the future. That is, the code for this project is pulled directly from this document using ~org-babel~ * Specifications ** Use Bevy In our [[*Cargo File \[2022-07-19 Tue\]][Cargo File]], we define Bevy 0.7 as a dependency. Bevy allows us to create a game using ECS and built in 2D and 3D renderers and compile it to wasm32 for web games. In our case, we will be making a 2D snake game and embedding it in this file. ** Show a snake ** Move the snake ** Accept User input ** Grow the snake when it collects pellets ** End the game if the snake hits a wall or its tail ** OPTIONAL Keep a score * Code ** Cargo File [2022-07-19 Tue] :Code: #+begin_src conf-toml :tangle "Cargo.toml" [package] name = "literate-snake" version = "0.1.0" edition = "2021" [dependencies] bevy = "0.7" rand = "0.7.3" #+end_src ** Start The Game [2022-07-19 Tue] :Code: #+begin_src rust :tangle "src/main.rs" use bevy::prelude::*; fn main() { App::new() .run(); } #+end_src ** Systems ** Add Camera System [2022-07-20 Wed] :Code: #+begin_src rust :tangle "src/main.rs" fn add_camera(mut commands: Commands){ commands. } #+end_src **

So currently I am learning Bevy, I had already followed this tutorial on how to create simple snake game. Now I have decided that I would like to TRY and create a clone of the space invaders. However I gut stuck, I had managed to create simple player movement and shooting, however I can't figure out how to make colision detection.

I was following the Creating a Snake Clone in Rust, with Bevy tutorial but I've run into an error. In the section where I make it so that the snake's tail follows the head it says that there is no implementation of `iter` for the `ResMut` struct.

> Cannot make a type in a foreign package implement an interface

I would only push back on this point, and this point alone. Sure, it would be very convenient for me, an author to be able to just extend the implementation of anything that I import. However, when I am not an author and am instead a reader of code, doing this is the number-one way to causally make code totally unreadable. By allowing anyone to extend a type anywhere, it makes it impossible to just read the code. If the package that declares a type is the sole controller of that type, then reading code is easier.

"Where is the definition of this method?" Answer: It's next to everything else for that type, in package where that type is defined. However, if anyone can extend any other type, figuring out what methods even exist for a type becomes so difficult that you are forced to use a language-server (with all related dependencies installed) in order to use "go-to-definition". If someone wants to understand the code, requiring them to have a full-fledged IDE and/or development environment is pretty awful and quite onerous, and makes codebases tough to get into.

For example, take this line[0] from a tutorial[1] on creating a simple snake game using the Bevvy engine in Rust. The main() function wires up loads of entities, including a `snake_eating()` function. But it also calls a mysterious `.after()` method of the snake_eating() function. If you do a ctrl-f on the file, you won't find an .after() method defined for the function snake_eating(). Just reading the code in that file, the only file in the program, you'll never find what the `.after()` method does or where it comes from. Only by opening that code in an IDE with go-to-definition will you learn that it's set via an automatic macro in the bevvy library[2] which causes all functions of certain signatures to implement the System trait. Which... is pretty tough to get into, and means just reading code without computer aid is effectively impossible.

In your languages, please don't allow packages to extend the interfaces/traits/types of other packages.

[0] - https://github.com/marcusbuffett/bevy_snake/blob/0.7/src/mai...

[1] - https://mbuffett.com/posts/bevy-snake-tutorial/

[2] - https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/1137

One of the checkers in golangci-lint does this. I forget which one.

golangci-lint rolls up lot of linters and checkers into a single binary.

There is a config file too.

https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint

golangci-lint is an amazing open-source tool for CI in Go projects. Basically, it's an aggregator and a Go linters runner that makes life easier for developers. It includes all the well-known liners by default but also provides an easy way to integrate new ones.

Fun fact: We actually use a code linter via golangci-linter to catch misspellings in code/comments using client9/misspell.

The "standard linter" in Go is https://golangci-lint.run/ , which includes [1] the absolutely-vital errcheck which will do that for you.

For an Advent of Code challenge you may want to turn off a lot of other things, since the linter is broadly tuned for production, public code by default and you're creating burner code and don't care whether or not you have godoc comments for your functions, for instance. But I suggest using golangci-lint rather than errcheck directly because there's some other things you may find useful, like ineffassign, exportloopref, etc.

[1]: https://golangci-lint.run/usage/linters/

golangci-lint recently integrated go-check-sumtype. I recommend using golangci-lint as a pre-commit hook, but if you're in a real hurry you can replace "go build" with a shell script that runs go-check-sumtype instead. This is probably better than a weird hack, not that you're saying that the weird hack is a good idea anyhow.

Golangci-lint is a tool for checking Go code quality, finding issues, bugs, and style problems. It helps keep the code clean and maintainable.

This is such an infuriating problem. I'm convinced I'm using Go wrong, because I simply can't understand how this doesn't make it a toy language. Why the $expletive am I wasting 20-30 and more minutes per week of my life looking for the source of an error!?

Have you seen https://github.com/tomarrell/wrapcheck? It's a linter than does a fairly good job of warning when an error originates from an external package but hasn't been wrapped in your codebase to make it unique or stacktraced. It comes with https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint and can even be made part of your in-editor LSP diagnostics.

But still, it's not perfect. And so I remain convinced that I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about the language because not being able to consistently find the source of an error is such an egregious failing for a programming language.