The solution we finally managed to come up with is also a good example of how very incorrect workarounds can actually be a really good solution to a complex problem.
So you knew they were presenting a "very incorrect workaround"---which, counterintuitively, worked better than some of the more "correct" things they tried.
So you knew they were presenting a "very incorrect workaround"
It actually made it a bit more enticing, I was expecting a horrific chain of gotos or some other cliche programming paradigm being completely violated for the sake of pragmatism.
What we got instead was, "This is a hard problem, let's just not solve it." which was written up with a title of "How we solved a hard problem"
Comments
Well, the first paragraph did say
So you knew they were presenting a "very incorrect workaround"---which, counterintuitively, worked better than some of the more "correct" things they tried.
It actually made it a bit more enticing, I was expecting a horrific chain of gotos or some other cliche programming paradigm being completely violated for the sake of pragmatism.
What we got instead was, "This is a hard problem, let's just not solve it." which was written up with a title of "How we solved a hard problem"
They did solve the problem, the solution was to turn of collision detection.