GRAYGER

I changed this site a little yesterday.
1. Design
After reading documents of wordpress, I made my own theme for the arcade site. I started my work from cbone theme, and changed CSS, images, etc. and created some page templates. I found making theme is not difficult because the architecture of wordpress is very flexible, and that is one of the reason why it is widely spread. I will study theme and plugin architecture more, and change this site little by little.

2. Contents
The new game page looks similar to (crapy) game portals. While most game portals have categories such as action, sports, puzzle etc., my site has categories: fun, artistic, additing, creative, even undervalued which is for games that are not popular but more attention should be paid to. There is also a category for games developed by me. I created pages for each game by hand. The hassle job includes downloading a zipped game bundle from mochi games, extracting it, and constructing the page. I will automate the job later.

My job is to make games. I don’t want to put much time on this site. It is for just fun.

As a company gets bigger, heavier process and controls are followed by the growth. Is the phenomenon reasonable? The culture statement of Netflix may break the stereotype.

Tom DeMarco, from his recent article in IEEE Software, says we should rethink the goal of a software project.

For the past 40 years, for example, we’ve tortured ourselves over our inability to finish a software project on time and on budget. But as I hinted earlier, this never should have been the supreme goal. The more important goal is transformation, creating software that changes the world or that transforms a company or how it does business.

Is software engineering, which weights controls over software projects, outdated? Really? The article is too short to strenghten his sensational arguments. However, software developement may become boring and dry as we focus more on a defined process or metrics.

Donald Knuth, the advocate of literate programming, gave his opinion on code reuse from an interview by Andrew Binstock

I also must confess to a strong bias against the fashion for reusable code. To me, “re-editable code” is much, much better than an untouchable black box or toolkit. I could go on and on about this. If you’re totally convinced that reusable code is wonderful, I probably won’t be able to sway you anyway, but you’ll never convince me that reusable code isn’t mostly a menace.

In my view, literately programmed code should be visible for every programmer through its evolution, so literate programming doesn’t cope with OCP well. I guess it is why he prefer “re-editable” code to reusable black box code. But I think benefits of information hiding can be sacrificed in no case.