Hi everyone, Thanks for all of the input last time and the grilling you gave me. I do very much appreciate it. I finally got my demo code bundled up and tested fairly extensively (fairly). I've uploaded it to my portfolio at my portfolio website. You can either download the zip and try to compile/run the app or look at the files directly on the portfolio. Right now it takes up gobs of visual space on my portfolio site. I'll reorganize that a little later but I'm tossing this out there for opinions on the code. Thanks, Stephen Cooney Edit: I guess, these are the questions I have: 1) In your opinion, is this the sort of material that an employer hiring for someone in the realm of physics/animation/graphics/gameplay would be interested in seeing? 2) I realize there is a lot of code, and understanding it might take a long time. That said, is it understandable? 3) The only real standard I followed for commenting code was that it show up in Doxygen for variables, functions and classes (First sentence is short description, rest is long). Is that going to really turn off anyone reviewing it? I didn't do the whole params lines and returns line, etc etc. Most of the functions are fairly self-explanatory (imo). 4) Did you get it to compile/run? :) [Edited by - StephenTC on January 31, 2010 10:43:03 AM]

1. This looks like a decent enough cross-section of various points of knowledge, so I'd say it's worth having in your portfolio. That said, the more code you can point to, the better. It's always good to have multiple projects that prove you can consistently do good work, rather than just one project that you might have been polishing for years.

2. It's not hard to figure out what the code does, but it is difficult to figure out why you've done certain things.

3. The comments look fine at first glance; I don't see any reason why someone would complain about the style. Every shop has their own commenting rules anyways, so being adaptable to those kinds of changes is important.

4. I didn't try, because I didn't have the time. If you want to prove that your code compiles and runs, why don't you provide a Visual Studio project or a makefile or something? Even more, why is there no option to download a binary of the code so one can see it in action? If I have to fiddle around with your code just to make it compile so I can see your demo, you can bet that your resume will end up in the round filing cabinet. Remember, you're competing against a huge number of people, especially right now. Don't give the reviewer any excuses to pass you up for a flashier candidate.


I'd be willing to do an in-depth review of the complete code if you like, but it may take a while before I get it totally done.

Quote: If you want to prove that your code compiles and runs, why don't you provide a Visual Studio project or a makefile or something?

There is a zip with both a makefile and a visual studio project.

Quote: Even more, why is there no option to download a binary of the code so one can see it in action?

I guess I can put something up, the makefile and visual studio project provided SHOULD compile (they've been tested on multiple platforms). It's just that it often requires MORE testing for compiled applications. There is a video however.

Alright, I'll try compiling multiple builds.

I'm currently working on my thesis and that will replace this as my primary code sample. I do have a couple different code samples elsewhere. It's clear people have problems deciphering my site :).

Thanks for your words,
Stephen Timothy Cooney

Heh, I totally missed the .zip download. My mistake [smile]

You should use a video as opposed to using the exe. This may not be true, but I spoke with some members of Blizzard Ent which told me a video is a LOT better than a demo exe because 1) it may not work on their computer, 2) they may not see the things you want them to see and 3) they may not even know why something is significant.

Edit: I see you said you have a video (I did not see it right away)