The only thing that I see the problem is, when the engine updates the code slowly becomes out dated. I’ve seen a lot of stuff that is useful only to find out that it doesn’t work, or requires updating. But I still like the idea, up voted.
There are a ton of usage examples for classes - the engine source code. Any time I’m not sure how a function is used, I look for a built-in engine class that uses it, and this solves 90% of my questions. This has the inherent benefit of always being updated.
Is there any way we can contribute to the documentation? With that I mean I’d love to add simple few-liners to the C++ documentation, at the bottom of a class or method, that shows basic usage or example use cases. For me, that’s the greatest resource when working with a new framework as it helps you easily see how a class is intended/best used.
I’d happily spend days on adding examples to even the most primitive classes, because I still feel like as vast as UE is, as bare its documentation is too.
+1. Consider adding your suggestion to the documentation feedback forum… Great idea!
There is a inherently Bad thing associated with that. People who not really know what they are doing are going to Contribute to the “official” Docs. That in return gets adopted by the Community unless you moderate (you got to Assign People for that for basicly forever). The Functions itself are mostly Documented or self Explaining if they lack Docs.
But I generally Agree with the idea of Code Samples on the Docs. If you want to involve the Community in I would suggest a UpVote functionality and maybe a Suggestion that you can send along for a suitable Example. That way Staff can set Prioritys on what the Community needs Code Samples for.
Thats something Epic´s Staff could Consider. It is also Managable and does not require Staff for Moderation. Only a couple Devs that get Assigned todo 2-5 most voted Functions once a Month. It will naturally cover the needs of the Community over time and don´t take much time away from their usual jobs.
I should have added that it is “approved” by someone so crappy stuff doesn’t get posted. Good catch.
Honestly, I was thinking in a StackOverflow-esque system where you can upvote and downvote. Bad examples, cq not conform standards or just bad practice, can be downvoted, while clear & concise examples could get upvoted. In turn, the below-0-voted examples are collapsed by default.
To Sum it up it needs a bit of careful Planning. I added my suggestion that would be good for both sides.