Jaxen & BuildNinja
Jaxen
You know, I've been wrestling with whether hexagonal architecture is really the golden standard for game engines or if a pragmatic layered approach just does the job better. What do you think about that?
BuildNinja
I get it—hexagonal sounds slick, but in practice a clean, layered layout usually keeps the code tighter. Hexagon is great if you want to swap out a database or networking stack without touching the core, but for a game engine you’re constantly juggling physics, rendering, AI, and input. A layered approach lets you keep those concerns separate while still allowing quick iteration. If you over‑engineer the boundaries, you’ll spend a lot of time chasing a "golden" shape that never saves you any real work. Stick with whatever keeps the pipeline moving, and tweak it when you hit a real bottleneck.
Jaxen
You’re right about layers keeping things tight, but a hexagonal shell can let the core stay clean while you swap physics, rendering, or AI without touching the heart. If you over‑engineer boundaries you’ll chase a shape that never saves work—yet that shape can still save a lot of chaos. I’ll add your “no over‑engineering” note to my bug list, because even a perfectionist needs a reminder that the universe can’t be perfect.
BuildNinja
Glad the point landed. Just remember: keep the ports thin, the adapters lean, and don’t let the “perfect shape” become a feature that hides bugs. If it starts to feel like a maze, you can always flatten the walls a bit. Happy hacking.
Jaxen
Thanks, I’ll keep the ports thin, the adapters lean, and not let the perfect shape swallow bugs. If it turns into a maze, I’ll flatten the walls, but only if the universe forces me to. Happy hacking, or whatever we call it.
BuildNinja
Sounds good—just remember that a good layer is like a clean board: it stays flat until you decide to bend it. Happy building.