I wonder why, doing Windows programming with OWL in 1993 was quite delightful, or Mac with AppToolbox/PowerPlant,...
Yes there is always C stuff coming throught the cracks, but I see similar aproaches with Rust code making use of unsafe when there are safe alternatives.
For me, it's because memories are not trustworthy (rose-colored glasses). Also, I had less experience back then. And we as an industry didn't know any better.
I got started in programming in Borland Pascal and Borland C++. Because of nostalgy, I've tried using them for fun again ten years ago and boy is there a reason I stopped using them in the first place. Sheesh.
Example OWL snippets:
for (int index = 0; index < count-1; index++) {
int len = GetStringLen(index);
TAPointer<tchar> buf(new tchar[len+1]);
GetString((tchar*)buf, index);
*outStream << (tchar*)buf << _T('\n');
//delete buf;
}
...
TClipboard cb(*this, false);
if (cb.EmptyClipboard()) {
int len = GetStringLen(index);
HANDLE cbhdl = ::GlobalAlloc(GHND,len+1);
LPTSTR buf = (LPTSTR)::GlobalLock(cbhdl);
GetString(buf, index);
::GlobalUnlock(cbhdl);
...
class tGastValid : public TEdit {
public:
tGastValid(TWindow *Win, short ID) : TEdit(Win, ID) {}
void EvKillFocus(HWND);
DECLARE_RESPONSE_TABLE(tGastValid);
};
DEFINE_RESPONSE_TABLE1(tGastValid, TEdit)
EV_WM_KILLFOCUS,
END_RESPONSE_TABLE;
void tGastValid::EvKillFocus(HWND hWnd) {
GetParentO()->SendMessage(WM_COMMAND, DB_BTGAST, 0);
TEdit::EvKillFocus(hWnd);
}
That said, Borland had really good class libraries. If I had those libraries in a modern language, hey that wouldn't be so bad. But these languages? No, thank you.
By the way, you should have a dive into how the "modern" development experience with Rust/WinRT compares with C++ Builder in 2022.
Really? I review and read a bunch of Rust code on a weekly basis from projects I might use in various contexts. I hardly ever see unsafe used, except in contexts where it is necessary like FFI.
I am pretty sure that your comment is provably false, if someone wanted to run a report on crates.io. Oh, looks like someone did, and it trends to 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/g0wu9b/percentage_of_...
From your link: To get this plot I ordered all crates by unsafe code % and then plotted it, so each point on the graph is unsafe code % for a single crate.
The link is still some evidence in support of your position, given that it drops off close to the left edge, i.e., a small number of crates have a large amount of unsafe code. But it isn't nearly the smackdown of GP's position you must think it to be for you to be so aggressive toward them.
I find the statements around unsafe in Rust to generally be incorrect though, from what I can tell, it’s only ever used in quite narrow cases and not generally across the vast majority of Rust software.
Not having looked at that API specifically, it might be that they think there are perhaps different approaches to implementing the safe interfaces, and those may be best left to specific implementations for UI abstraction frameworks, like Druid.
Just speculating.
I've been coding C/C++ since 1995. I'll take Rust any day, thanks.
Don't forget that to contribute to Rust backends on their present forms, some C++ is required.
I never used the C++ version OWL (though i do have Borland C++ 5 around here, perhaps i'll try it for fun at some point), but the Turbo Pascal version of OWL (which i also really used but had a brush with - and some docs) wasn't really that great - more of a helper library for the underlying Windows API, needing to know the underlying API, in practice not very different than MFC (also more of a helper library to make using Win16/Win32 easier than something to let you ignore it).
VCL was by long long far the best API/Framework (and in some ways it still is, though FCL/LCL is better since it is richer and also crossplatform).
FWIW i did a partial recreation of Turbo Pascal OWL in Free Pascal some years ago[0]. It doesn't have much of a practical use though (unless you want to make some small GUI EXE files in Free Pascal) since i think even Borland abandoned the Pascal version of OWL and i doubt many people used it.
Naturally VCL was even better, Microsoft is still trying to catch up with C++ Builder and failing spectacularly at it. C++/CX could have been it, but then the ATL/WRL folks at WinDev had to kill it.
What is the problem with that?
[0] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/r...
This is such a bogus argument. I am working in Crypto and have no trouble getting offers from non crypto companies. My resume also carries other evils such as the surveillance overlord and the evil empire, among others. I always found it easy to waltz into a new job with those names.
I have also hired dozens of people coming from companies which were pinatas of du jour. Neither I nor any of the other people involved (sourcers, recruiters, execs, HR) gave even a minimal amount of shit regarding "resume stench". If a candidate passed our hiring bar, we hired them.
So stop spreading this FUD.
Yes, yes I do. I've had a candidate with 2 crypto rug pull startups under his belt, otherwise brilliant and passionate about tech. He went back in for a hat trick. I do not think he displayed proper judgement, do you?
Do you also think that someone who worked on two Google chat apps (which are obviously discontinued) and now working on their third one is showing a lack of judgement?
Not if they recognize the mistake and learn from it.
> Do you also think that someone who worked on two Google chat apps (which are obviously discontinued) and now working on their third one is showing a lack of judgement?
No, it's not fraud and the paycheck checks out. On the other hand, can you imagine? Do you know someone like that?
what if they don't think it was any mistake and was just an honest job?
> can you imagine? Do you know someone like that?
Yes, personally know someone at Google in that space who worked on multiple chat apps and nicely climbed the career ladder.
But anyway, the amount of value you can provide there is severely limited, as you can only at most undo the value your government is destroying. You can't ever get in a better situation than what you would get with a competent liberal-ish government and no cryptomoney.
That means some business can exist there, and a small amount of it can even be morally acceptable. But it is completely different from the internet boom.
And what if you have only an incompetent authoritarian government? How would you help fight citizens of those governments? Crypto is a great tool there. Just because there are insufferable crypto-bros peddling shitcoins to make a quick buck doesn't mean entire Crypto field is useless. That'd be like blacklisting the entire data mining field because surveillance tech and adtech exist.
Then cryptomoney can give you a limited, non-zero amount of value. Still less than fixing the government, but it is easier to deploy.
Even then, comparing it with the internet boom is bullshit.
Glad we agree on this. Everything else (eg. comparison with internet boom) is a matter of degree and only time will tell.
(in case it isn't obvious, yes, I fully agree that evading government control/taxation is a hugely lucrative market).
Why do you think governments are always right? Haven't you learned any history?
I'm sure this is the 990th time that I have heard this. The fact is, it isn't going away and it seems even more crypto companies have taken interest in using Rust and that is good.
Even some (crypto) companies are sponsoring the Rust Foundation as silver members. Nothing wrong with that. [0]
(1) Not speculation, gambling, or some variation thereof.
(2) Useful for something other than crypto itself.
(3) Actually works and can be used today.
(4) Continues to make sense even in a crypto bear market. (In other words: I will still buy milk even if the US dollar is falling because the point is the milk not the dollar. What in crypto is like that?)
I prepared that post since the question you posed comes up every week here, if not more frequently.
This was all technically possible in 2009. What I was getting at was… what’s new? Billions and billions have been poured into all kinds of app development and R&D in this space and all we have is still what we had when Bitcoin launched.
What are all these people in crypto building? Where is it? Where can I use it?
Imagine if 25 years after the dot com era after hundreds of billions had been spent we still just had e-mail, static html4, and text chat protocols over dialup modem.
Increased social and political acceptance of Bitcoin as virtual money? That is a big deal.
> ...all we have is still what we had when Bitcoin launched.
False. In 2009, a very very small minority took it seriously. Now you have Blackrocks of the world getting in that business and SEC approving a Bitcoin ETF. So after Billions and billions of investment, now Crypto is a "serious business". Which is exactly why people in Afghanistan and Venezuela can rely on Bitcoin. They wouldn't have done so in 2009.
Another use case is digital art. Until NFTs, I am not sure how artists made money with their digital collections. Now, the creators of Bored Apes can fetch ~75 ETH (~100K USD)[1] per Ape, even today after the Crypto market has crashed. That is durable value and Crypto has enabled that avenue for artists. If you think NFTs are scam for laundering black money, burden of proof would be on you to make a case about why that is different from traditional paintings. And if you think traditional art too is nothing more than an avenue for money laundering, then... I'd propose we agree to disagree.
Yet another use case is branding. Just look at the adoption of NFTs[2] among top brands like Nike, D&G, Tiffany, Gucci, NFL, NBA, La Liga or Australian Open. If legit businesses and sports leagues are adopting Crypto for branding purposes, that is a resounding proof about the viability of this particular use case.
[1] https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/web3/top-brands-in-web3-nfts-and-th...
Is their work pointless? Sure. But aren't Googlers' jobs not pointless too? That's the sad state of the 21th century: most people have a bullshit job but they need it to pay their mortgage.
Matthew Green from John Hopkins University [0]
Zhenfei Zhang of Ethereum, Mina, Algorand blockchains who co-created the NIST post-quantum cryptography standard for digital signatures called Falcon [1]
Nadim Kobeissi creator of cryptocat now created Capsule Social [2]
Silvio Micali, Turing Award Winner for his work on Zero-Knowledge Proofs [3]
So, I'm afraid that there are some credible people like those above who have a significant and documented background in cryptography who are also working in the cryptocurrency industry.
I don't think most of these people are into cryptocurrencies specifically.
They are? Especially the creator of Algorand (a cryptocurrency) Silvio Micali. In his CV [0]
> "Scientific Interests, Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains"
At the bottom of his CV:
> "Technology Transfer: Algorand, Founder and Inventor of the Core Technology"
If that is not 'into' cryptocurrencies, then I don't know what is.
That's the opposite of my experience. The ability to abstract is exactly what I miss since working with C#, with much useful stuff removed to please incompetent developers and their managers.
It is not really surprising that the crypto bros jumped onto the bandwagon, the tech got hyped just around the same time. Just, one of them correctly. :)
It's just a shame that other companies don't seem to follow suit. Except some, who always ask for "Senior Rust Developer" which I'd guess is still a limited supply market. :D
I've seen a role advertised for 750k/month. It makes sens: those who move fastest get to milk the crypto bubble and make out like bandits. Oh wait, exactly like bandits.
We are hiring for Rust engineers. Not crypto. :)
I'm curious to see an example. Could you show something written in Rust, or another "much higher level language" that you think would be messier or more difficult to write in C++ ?
event.SetKeyPress(ch);
event.SetMouseButtonPress(pos, but); etc
...
switch (event.type) {
case EvKeyPress: ch = event.GetKeyPress();
switch (event->type) {
case EvKeyPressEvent:
{
auto kpe - dynamic_cast<KeyPressEvent*>(event)
...
}
break;
}
C++ promised to be a language that was both high performance and very expressive but I always found it very difficult to work at a high level of abstraction in C++. The sharp details always stab through.
Rust code, on the other hand, often doesn't look much more elaborate than code I write in much higher level languages but it's far, far faster and I feel more confident in its correctness.
Too bad most of the Rust jobs right now seem to be in crypto.