That is not a question that will get any sort of useful answer in a town hall debate.
Nor even on
from my understanding a game "dev" does very little programming in the traditional sense
I work on a VR project at my day job (basically a video game). Your statement that we use a "pre-made" game engine is basically like saying that nobody does any "real" programming if they use a library or some code that someone else wrote. In other words: yours is a no-true-scotsman statement.
These guys are mostly doing scripting
We used both C++ and Unreal Script when we were using UDK (Unreal Engine 3). But everything we do now with Unreal 4 is C++ (and some Blueprint stuff to hook the GUI together).
world building, animation, modeling, progress triggers, hit boxes, etc.
Yes, that's the problem domain. And how do you think these things get implemented? With code.
So assuming I'm correct on that, Lint would be useless for this.
You're not really correct on all that. Also Lint and other static analysis tools are useful. John Carmack has some great insight into all this and how static analysis tools can help and fit into game development. As evidence: the Doom 3 source code is pretty generally very good.
For everything that actually is calling the OS a thin C layer in the libraries is used, because it is a difference if you need to to do an "interrupt" or some other way to call the kernel.
There's absolutely zero need to use C. C++ will do exactly the same things (possibly in exactly the same ways) with absolutely no extra overhead compared to C and C++ will do so in an easier, safer, and more readable fashion than C.
Do not misconstrue my statements to be derogatory toward C or C programmers! I'm simply trying to pedantically point out that there's no need to have a "thin layer of C" between C++ and the kernel.
what exactly do you mean?
I think this question is a good but tricky question. I think mankind has been struggling for thousands of years to really nail down what it means to be conscious, to think, to understand, to know. The best I response I have is a wimpy one: "People are intelligent, people know and understand, people are conscious. Machines are not."
If you don't know anything about machines or people then this answer won't help.
If one wishes to be intentionally obtuse or if one really wishes to equivocate then again this answer won't help.
But for those who are honestly interested and know a little something about what a machine is and how it differs from a human then I suppose such people don't really need a rigorous dictionary definition to explain to them the difference between themselves and a washing machine.
How can I test your statements?
Well, I should think that TFS and TFA did a pretty good job of it...
Plenty of people seem to disagree with it.
Argument from majority is a form of argument from authority. It's fallacious.
As for artistry, it also won Best Cinematography.
Again: argument from authority.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh