Is this a bad practice?

Help and Feedback Scripting Support
#1

I want to organize my framework. So, I put all the modules and folders I need into tables like this:

local Folders = {
    Folder1 = ReplicatedStorage.Folder1
}

local Modules = {
    Module1 = require(Folders.Folder1.Module1)
}

I just want to make sure this isnt bad for performance due to memory leaks. Thanks!

2 Likes
#2

This is a dictionary not a table. I’m not sure how this would be a reason for memory leaks? A memory leak is caused from losing a reference to something without cleaning it up like a connection(disconnect exist for a reason). Having a refence to something that is no longer needed can also be a memory leak due to it not being garbage collected.

#3

Fine then. But did you read the title? You replied but didn’t answer the post’s key question.

#4

It’s not bad practice to have access to all the modules in 1 script because it’s easy for communication reasons.

Although you could manage them easier and require them via a loop so you don’t have to manually type them all in every time.

I think throwing folders into dictionary is a little redundant though… modules could be useful in a dictionary for referencing purpose. Most frameworks use 1 script with many modules.

#5

That’s what the Crystal Framework does. One client script, and one server script.

1 Like
#6

So you’re saying, that something like this would be better so I could add easily without editing every script?

function g:ReturnServer(): {ModuleScript}
	local modules = {}
	for _,module in ipairs(ServerStorage.Modules) do
		table.insert(modules, module)
	end
	return modules
end
#7

This is not bad practice, and this should be moved to a personal module script so you can access these variables from other scripts without having to define them from other scripts.