3 ms·
You don't have the source at all, if you're you. If you're a big company (think publicly traded, not just big), you do have near realtime access to both Unity
by cornel_io 4y ago
You don't have the source at all, if you're you.
If you're a big company (think publicly traded, not just big), you do have near realtime access to both Unity dev teams and the full up-to-date source, and you may even ship builds made with internally customized Unity versions, but it's such bad code that you wish you didn't. And they don't accept patches back for integration in any timeline worth considering, so it's really hard to maintain local changesets while still pulling Unity's improvements in patches releases.
- luxxuor 4y agoWhat is your source on that? You do not have to be a publicly traded company to get source code Access, the source code is actually pretty well written and maintained. With the new approach of features being delivered in packages you get all the source directly in c#.
- cornel_io 4y agoUnless things have changed drastically since I was at BigCo (and maintained a branch of Unity 4 for several teams, so was very familiar with the codebase, and their native code was horrific) unless you have serious sway you don't get engine source, and in my experience that's where a ton of the bugs that will screw you lie. In fact I'm dealing with a few right now at a smallCo that definitely doesn't have access (we've asked) to the important pieces of code that are making our lives hell. I definitely agree that shipping more stuff in C# packages is a good thing, and those are mostly well written, I mostly just hate the actual C++ engine, which is frankly a disaster held together by bubble gum and spit.