To be clear there are definitely a few ideoms I'd need to learn before considering this readable (it ain't psudocode), but I generally see all the building blocks and recognize what they're achiving. Maybe I'd have put them together slightly differently, but that could be equally true in Python. I'd rather learn this next than C++.
The density of how it's been written reminds me of some lisp code I've read, some implementations of state machines can be hard to follow too (in the classic "but where does it do the thing?" sense). I attribute a lot of the stuff that I don't follow to the lower-level C influence; I'm working for the first time with memory managment, structs, static types, pointers, bitwise opperations, etc.
Think I made my point in there somewhere >z>
Would love to know where you're coming at it from, I'd imagine that the C or 'kinda functional control flow' aspects might explain what looks most forign to you too (unless you have broader experience with low level languages)?
Style-wise, looks fine. Code split up into functions where it makes sense, inlined where it doesn't. I've seen worse - for example, code that takes the equivalent of that, and splits it into 100 functions across 10+ files.
This so many times. Will never understand why people are so afraid of multi thousand lines of properly structured code but will happily giggle when the same structure is split across 10-20 files. And no, it’s not for reuse sake.
Encapsulation and modularity are good engineering practices. Personally, I will not contribute to any project that opposes such things
Where did I say anything about that?