And on the flip side tech gets Leetcode interviews, shoehorned microservices when you dont need it, slow web browsers.
The game industry iterates far faster and the result are programs that can handle far more features than the average tech methodology. It's the classic quantity leads to quality pottery grading experiment. Have you ever considered that these 'best practices' pile on so much unneeded crap that an experienced developer doesn't need?
I would not necessarily say that game development has better quality than web browsers. And the latter are anything but slow — they are engineering marvels no matter what you think of them. It’s just that websites like to utilize it shittily.
There's a lot of games out there, way more than there are web browsers. For a start try comparing games with manpower/dev support levels similar to a web browser like chrome. If we take a AAA open world game, the game somehow gets more features done compared to chrome. There's something that can be learnt there.
Also last I heard there was a startup aiming to solve slow browsers by running chrome in a server and streaming a video of the window somewhere. If that's not a setback I don't know what is.
> There's a lot of games out there, way more than there are web browsers.
Maybe this should tell you something about the relative complexity of the two problems. And frankly, features in a game are non-comparable to browser features.
You're missing the point. You can't make such a claim about complexity based off the amount of software there is. Games are by far the more popular software to make. This is why I've narrowed it down for you, hopefully you can understand that.
> features in a game are non-comparable to browser features
You can't hand-wave this away. I'm certain you need a lot more math knowledge if you want to implement something like physical world. Does a web browser need that?
The fact is that a single person with a decent amount of knowledge can write a game engine that is more or less complete, while not even FANG companies can write a web browser from scratch should definitely be proof that the latter is more complex.
Some physics and linear algebra, while I’m not saying is easy, but it is not a complex layouting and CSS engine, with a state of the art language runtime, with all the possible requests, sandboxing, etc. — of course you don’t necessarily have to write an optimized browser, but still, just implementing a usable subset of the web is ridiculously hard.
> The fact is that a single person with a decent amount of knowledge can write a game engine that is more or less complete, while not even FANG companies can write a web browser from scratch should definitely be proof that the latter is more complex.
Again you're trying to backtrace the results to the complexity of the task and the linkage simply does not make sense.
> Some physics and linear algebra, while I’m not saying is easy, but it is not a complex layouting and CSS engine, with a state of the art language runtime, with all the possible requests, sandboxing, etc. — of course you don’t necessarily have to write an optimized browser, but still, just implementing a usable subset of the web is ridiculously hard.
Well it seems to be easier because you can literally look it up through the internet and implement it as a set of rules. The hard part would be the combinatorial number of cases. If you don't have the math requirements to make a game with a 3d world from scratch it will not feel good.
The game industry iterates far faster and the result are programs that can handle far more features than the average tech methodology. It's the classic quantity leads to quality pottery grading experiment. Have you ever considered that these 'best practices' pile on so much unneeded crap that an experienced developer doesn't need?