This code is rather poorly written, especially in terms of logic, in the sense that it does not result from human reasoning. The code is very poor, and the variables are named in a strange way. The cooldown logic is reversed with now - cooldown[name] instead of cooldown[name] - now, which produces negative values displayed to the user. The LaserSwordPushArea function is duplicated in lines 32 and 39 in two conditional branches without justification. The use of core and minetest in the same file indicates a clear lack of reasoning and verification of the generated code. The sabers data structure uses an array with numerical iteration, whereas pattern matching or a set would be more efficient. The naming conventions are ‘excessive’ and difficult to read (you could have used "_", suggesting code generation by AI rather than ‘normal’ practice). The held_item check in an O(n) loop for each punch/dig event is inefficient compared to a direct check by prefix or lookup table
But at least the code works, which is already something
I have a small feeling that I know who you might be (because lets be real, nobody has this much free time to criticise others work unlesd you have some sort of grudge against me), however Ill play your game.
The naming conventions are ‘excessive’ and difficult to read (you could have used "_", suggesting code generation by AI rather than ‘normal’ practice).
Firstly, naming conventions can depend how comfortable a person feels to type out the name of a function/variable while programming. I dont think a preference of naming conventions can justify whether or not someone has used AI.
LaserSwordPushArea function is duplicated in lines 32 and 39 in two conditional branches without justification.
Correction, lines 43 and 52. Sure it can be seen as excessive code, however, this just further justifies the fact that the code isnt AI generated.
No offence, nitpicking code just suggests you are a bored person in life. Please do something more productive than to criticise others work.
I have never seen AI make comments like: -- Might be a bit too much distance.. but.. LASER! or what about: if held_item == sabers[i]then (notice the double space before sabers[i]) Small little things just seem to make it look like it wasn't ai generated.
There are several flaws in your review of this mod:
This code is rather poorly written, especially in terms of logic, in the sense that it does not result from human reasoning. The code is very poor, and the variables are named in a strange way.
You’re speaking on behalf of every programmer on earth here. Naming is subjective — you may find it odd, but others (like me) understand it just fine.. We all have different habits, there is no universal “human naming standard.”
The use of core and minetest in the same file indicates a clear lack of reasoning and verification of the generated code.
@frogTheSecond's comment is more than valid and something I've done.
The naming conventions are ‘excessive’ and difficult to read (you could have used "_", suggesting code generation by AI rather than ‘normal’ practice)
Type this prompt into ChatGPT (or Gemini) a few times. make a simple minetest function that spawns an entity when the function is called I've done this 5 times and I have failed to get the naming convention that you say proves that this mod is Ai in fact. I keep getting the _ naming practice, which happens to be very commonly used among other mods.
Now even with all of this. If this was made with an ai prompt (which from what I've seen, it doesn't look like it) You would've had to specifically ask for each little nuance that you have described. Except in maybe some very edge cases.
And finally. Your entire review focuses on the possibility that the code is AI-generated — not the functionality. You’re reviewing a hypothesis instead of the mod itself. If you think the code quality could be improved, that’s perfectly valid feedback, but framing the entire critique around “this is AI-generated” — when the evidence points in the opposite direction — is unfair. If you have problems with the code, go to github and submit an issue. Or even better yet. Submit a PR!
it looks like at this point multiple people have addressed the flaws of the claims in this "review", additionally this is bordering on attacking/being abusive, so converting this to a thread. if you wish to review this mod and point out issues, please do so in a constructive way and i would encourage you to submit a pr or make a fork if you so desire.
This code is rather poorly written, especially in terms of logic, in the sense that it does not result from human reasoning. The code is very poor, and the variables are named in a strange way. The cooldown logic is reversed with now - cooldown[name] instead of cooldown[name] - now, which produces negative values displayed to the user. The LaserSwordPushArea function is duplicated in lines 32 and 39 in two conditional branches without justification. The use of core and minetest in the same file indicates a clear lack of reasoning and verification of the generated code. The sabers data structure uses an array with numerical iteration, whereas pattern matching or a set would be more efficient. The naming conventions are ‘excessive’ and difficult to read (you could have used "_", suggesting code generation by AI rather than ‘normal’ practice). The held_item check in an O(n) loop for each punch/dig event is inefficient compared to a direct check by prefix or lookup table But at least the code works, which is already something
really small nitpick with your review:
I used to do this when i was going from using the
minetestnamespace tocorefor a short timeI have a small feeling that I know who you might be (because lets be real, nobody has this much free time to criticise others work unlesd you have some sort of grudge against me), however Ill play your game.
Firstly, naming conventions can depend how comfortable a person feels to type out the name of a function/variable while programming. I dont think a preference of naming conventions can justify whether or not someone has used AI.
Correction, lines 43 and 52. Sure it can be seen as excessive code, however, this just further justifies the fact that the code isnt AI generated.
No offence, nitpicking code just suggests you are a bored person in life. Please do something more productive than to criticise others work.
I have never seen AI make comments like:
-- Might be a bit too much distance.. but.. LASER!or what about:if held_item == sabers[i]then(notice the double space beforesabers[i]) Small little things just seem to make it look like it wasn't ai generated.There are several flaws in your review of this mod:
You’re speaking on behalf of every programmer on earth here. Naming is subjective — you may find it odd, but others (like me) understand it just fine.. We all have different habits, there is no universal “human naming standard.”
@frogTheSecond's comment is more than valid and something I've done.
Type this prompt into ChatGPT (or Gemini) a few times.
make a simple minetest function that spawns an entity when the function is calledI've done this 5 times and I have failed to get the naming convention that you say proves that this mod is Ai in fact. I keep getting the _ naming practice, which happens to be very commonly used among other mods.Now even with all of this. If this was made with an ai prompt (which from what I've seen, it doesn't look like it) You would've had to specifically ask for each little nuance that you have described. Except in maybe some very edge cases.
And finally. Your entire review focuses on the possibility that the code is AI-generated — not the functionality. You’re reviewing a hypothesis instead of the mod itself. If you think the code quality could be improved, that’s perfectly valid feedback, but framing the entire critique around “this is AI-generated” — when the evidence points in the opposite direction — is unfair. If you have problems with the code, go to github and submit an issue. Or even better yet. Submit a PR!
converted review into a thread
it looks like at this point multiple people have addressed the flaws of the claims in this "review", additionally this is bordering on attacking/being abusive, so converting this to a thread. if you wish to review this mod and point out issues, please do so in a constructive way and i would encourage you to submit a pr or make a fork if you so desire.