Followers 0

# Code Review - Pong clone..

## 5 posts in this topic

Hello

For the past few days I have been working on the Pong clone. I have made it before, but I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the code, so I decided to rewrite it. I guess you all are bored, because of the Pong Clones attacking you from every side, but here it is:

https://gist.github.com/Shayelxx/5691085

Well.. I think that it may be too big for such a simple game, but I am just starting to learn :)

2

##### Share on other sites

I can't do a full code review, I don't think I am qualified to do that. ^^

But as a few suggestions.

1. SFML's rectangle(as do most graphics API's) have functions 'contains' or 'intersects.' I'd always use one of those functions rather than reinventing a bounding box collision.

2. Personally I like to create my own Vector class so I can remove coupling between graphics and physics as much possible. Since your graphics api, SFML, provides you with sf::vector I'd make your own for the physics. This way you can override basic operations like addition, subtraction and equals with C++. Also you can also write the normalize, mag, and other vector operations in that class rather than putting them in CBall.

3. Totally preference. But when I create my headers I go by this order. Public functions/variables -> private functions/variables. You have it the other way around. I like the most general, class defining functions to be at the top and the details(private variables/functions) to be at the bottom. Simply makes it more readable and maintainable in larger projects, for me.

Other than that, it seems well engineered to me for a simple game ^^. Easily readable and logical. GJ!

2

##### Share on other sites

As for the SFML advices: I am new to sfml, I have just moved from SDL.. well.. previous bad and ugly pong was written using SDL. But I find SFML much more friendly. Anyway, thanks for advices. In the classes, I prefer to describe the private fields first. It is the core of a class, when I look at it I can see what it really is :) But as you said, it is a matter of preference :)

0

##### Share on other sites

Wow.. thats.. quite a lot :) I will definitely keep your advices in mind when creating next project. There were some problems, that I couldn't solve other way than doing things such as

if(score.AddPoint(ball.Logic(deltaT.asSeconds(), paddle1, paddle2))) Reset();


I admit that it is not the best way, but at this point I couldn't make up any other, working solution. You can probably see that I am not the best in creating object oriented code :) I'm still learning what to make public/private, how to change the private fields etc.. As for putting C in the class names. Well.. it helps me :) I don't think it confuses other people, and if it does just tell me :) Thanks for advices! :)

1

##### Share on other sites

Wow.. thats.. quite a lot  I will definitely keep your advices in mind when creating next project.... Thanks for advices!

No problem.

I admit that it is not the best way, but at this point I couldn't make up any other, working solution.

Here is an example of how I might rewrite that part of the code:

float deltaSeconds = deltaT.asSeconds();

ball.Logic(deltaSeconds);

}

}

Vec ballPosition = ball.GetPosition();

if(ballPosition.y < 0 || ballPosition.y > SCREEN_H) {
ball.BounceVertical();
}

bool resetPoint = false;
if(ballPosition.x < 0) {
score.IncreaseRightPlayerPoints();
resetPoint = true;
} else if(ballPosition.x > SCREEN_W) {

score.IncreaseLeftPlayerPoints();
resetPoint = true;

}

if(score.isGameOver()) {
ResetGame();
} else if(resetPoint) {
ResetForPoint();
}



The main change is pulling the code that deals with object interactions (ball vs paddle, ball vs wall, ...) outside the objects themselves. We no longer have the ball needing to know about the paddles and then trying to communicate collisions back to the playing class, which needs to forward them into the score class for further processing, which finally tries to return a decision about resetting back into the playing class.

A smaller, more focused change would be:

int pointScorer = ball.Logic(deltaT.asSeconds(), paddle1, paddle2);
if(pointScorer != 0) {
if(score.isGameOver()) {
Reset();
}
}


You can probably see that I am not the best in creating object oriented code

That is OK, it is a skill that you refine over time. There are other people who might disagree with some of my comments. Leaving aside any outright errors I may have made, the likely cause of such disagreements is because there is no one true way to solve programming problems. You can get a sense of this even from the two approaches I outlined above.

Each person has their own "style", not merely at the presentation level but rather in how they fundamentally approach, understand, de-construct and solve problems. There are other aspects to style too, for example because I work with a team, I make an effort to write my programs in a more straight-forward manner, rather than the more idiosyncratic style I had before I started collaborating with other programmers. Another influence on my style is unit testing - the code where the ball doesn't need to know about the paddles is easier to unit test.

The way to improve your knowledge of object oriented code is to keep writing programs.

1

## Create an account

Register a new account