>Surely you agree your position (I'll restate it here, just so we're in the same page: that it is a bad idea to modify code and a good idea to implement most ch

>Surely you agree your position (I'll restate it here, just so we're in the same page: that it is a bad idea to modify code and a good idea to implement most changes as "changes in data") is completely non-mainstream? It's been mainstream in the games industry for the past 10 years or so. Obviously it's not in the enterprise software. >If you don't believe in changing code and you don't believe in scripting, then how do you propose stuff like changes in unit behaviors in an RTS are implemented? Say you have to change the enemy AI, or add a new unit that behaves differently, or even fix the path-finding algorithm. You are conflating two things. Bug fixing obviously requires code changes to repair the defective code. Implementing a new unit or AI is better be setting up flags or adding components from a set. It's no different from the business software recording transactions or entities into a database. Hopefully you don't write new code for each new order or a new SKU in the warehouse? >I don't follow. Are you arguing games are less or more expensive? As I said above, games show orders of magnitude less cost per functional complexity. A game with much more different complex behaviors than a typical enterprise system takes much less man/hours to code and test.