Source Code with missing parts

[jhd]

Back in about 1989, I was learning to code in Pascal. I was using Turbo Pascal 3.0 (older, but still useful to a beginner).

 

Some computer magazine had released the TP source code to a simple game on the included disk (as well as the program itself). I was excited at the prospect of being able to modify and adapt the code into my own version. Well, I went to compile the game myself, only to discover that the graphics assets were in a separate file, which was not included on the disk! I could make whatever changes I wanted, but I was then unable to do anything useful or practical with the source code. I was quite frustrated.

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

[jdgabbard]

I typically run across code that isn't so much missing important pieces as it is not compatible with newer versions of compilers. This sucks because of convenience. But is usually workable once you get your ducks in a row.

 

Personally I hate it when someone's code isn't documented very well. There is nothing like seeming code that points to some routine that gives no information on what the coder was attempting to do. Sure, I can deduce to a point. But it happens. I usually try to include a description of every routine in my code.

 

What is really nice is when you're looking at someone else's code and you know that the two of you think much alike. It really helps fill in the gaps. I was looking over an assembly file the other night that I found online. I was blown away when I looked at a particular routine and it looked familiar. I pulled up one of my own and checked, there was a 4-Byte difference between the two. But otherwise identical. I'm pretty sure the two of use could conquer the world, and I've never met the guy.

[JamesD]

I've run across code that is missing graphics data.
It's usually accompanied by poorly documented code which makes it impossible to even figure out what anything does.
I got the distinct impression in many cases the programmer had intentionally obfuscated their code to render it useless.
But hey, you have the source code right?

[jhd]

I can understand intentionally obfuscating code in some (rare) circumstances, but not when the intention is to publish it in a magazine!