Closed pixelzoom closed 11 years ago
General comment: Code would benefit from taking a look through all source files and adding a bit of JSdoc. Mostly for constructors, other functions look generally good. JSdoc type annotations (e.g. {ParticleAtom}) would be useful for parameters whose types are not obvious or might be ambiguous. For example, when i see an 'atom' parameter, I don't know if it's a NumberAtom or ParticleAtom. Not necessary for parameters that are obviously number, booleans, etc. Useful for function parameters to document what parameters they take and what (if anything) they return.
Finished code review. No additional issues created, only 'REVIEW' tags in the code. Code is in overall great shape, easy to read. A bit more JSdoc (as mentioned above) is the only thing that would have made reading the code a bit easier.
I paid particular attention to loops and callbacks, but I didn't see any obvious performance issues.
Let me know if there's anything you want to discuss.
Oops, I lied... I did create 1 issue during code review: https://github.com/phetsims/build-an-atom/issues/55
Skimmed through the commits, looks good, closing this issue.
@jbphet will indicate when it's ready for review. @pixelzoom will do it. @jonathanolson will review for scenery performance.