Відео

Most of the basic crap I find out via playtesting in C++ I instead get told via compiler errors. Rust is "harder"?? No. It is easier. And I have introduced several devs who all loved it, and the only " issue" I see them encounter is trying to do things the way it was done in C/C++

* Either you love the complier or you love the debugger. You choose. * I'm a principal dev with +30 years development experience in C, C++, Java, Go and Rust. Which would I use to develop a game in? I don't know because I'm not a game developer. However, if I wanted to build a multi-threaded,, distributed system I'd use Go. If I wanted to to build a high-frequency automated trading system I'd use Rust. Which is what I'm doing right now. I can't have any crashes, no latency spikes, no garbage collection. Just fast, performant CPU / GPU utilisation. With Rust you pay upfront in longer dev times, knowing that in the longer term you won't have to spend your time with the debugger.

It's like the books of religions VS real life... Welcome to the atheistic side of programming! 😅💻 Keep in mind that religions were created to keep people in line, so the atheistic side of programming should be used with caution, ensuring you know what you're doing! ⚠

I do not do game dev so idk if cpp is better for this. I use rust to interface with dodgy .dll/.so files from third parties. Having cpp do that is possible but its much harder to properly define what certain things ought to be able to do. For example I dont think there is a way to prevent a handle to something from beeing sent to another thread in cpp in rust this is trivial. Ive sadly seen handles passed around threads in cpp code too much when its clear that doing so is ub. Sadly its to ultra sad kind of ub with dodgy dll files where your application randomly crashes 5 minutes later because of stack corruption that the dll did because you used a handle from it in the wrong thread.

Well it seems like there is a RCE vulnerability in linux which has been present for more than a decade and it's going to be announced in < 2 weeks. He indeed was right

One of the worst and most embarrassing clips of all time.

Fucking redundancy for doing so little! A full software rasterizer has less code than drawing a fucking triangle in opengl or even worse in directx!

I program under the "purposeful" paradigm. If I need an object, I'll have an object, if I need an object that can make related copies of itself and have personal functions glued to them I have a class, if I need something to be called to run a little task to return something I have a function... If I need a loop it's gonna be a for loop instead of any method most of the time, because I can't be bothered to learn 10 lookalike methods that do completely different things and most of the time require n callbacks (sloooow).

Let me guess: 1) Bloat. 2) Dozens of layers of inheritance, the inheritance pyramid of doom.

Pragmata Pro is the answer

“There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.” - Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++

As always he takes some good idea like "too much abstraction is bad" and runs with it till it becomes ridicilous. OOP is good. It's a very convinient, easy and efficient way to structure your programms. It's a GOOOD layer of abstraction. Of course, you need to understand what you are doing, and don't just blindly use OOP everywhere - do not replace all your "switch" statements with virtual functions - that would be really bad - if you know in advance all your cases, put it into a switch statment. But in many other cases - yes, using virtual functions instead of switch would be good.

you dont need a shader language, you just need a generic pbr pre-programmed shading system. yes like it was a generic texture raster system. but T&L.

encapsulation is a better goal, a main concept in the oop. doing fall in the oop mantra stuff. only use what is actually useful.

2:50 "companies still have some degree of QA" made me laugh

OOP solves a problem, by using a paradigm which makes it easy to share functional blocks of code amongst many people. I was prepared to hear some intelligent counterarguments, but I found none here.

Isn't Vulkan open source?

There's a concept called Incidental Complexity, which is more or less what he's talking about. Complexity that doesn't directly solve the core problem you're trying to solve. Entity Component System is a good example, because it's an extra complexity that whilst helpful in some scenarios, does not directly solve your game logic problems. That is to say, if you don't need what ECS offers, then adopting it's extra complexity is wasted effort. In some industries, incidental complexity is so high that 80% of the work is solving problems the frameworks or libraries introduced, whilst trying to solve a very simple problem, and you would have been better off writing it from scratch.

Complains toolbar takes up wasted space. Doesn’t set to auto hide. 🤡

This video was fun lol

sokol and bgfx isn't bad, but sokol_fetch is missing on other languages than c, and you should build bgfx from source.

Ideas in the future : make simp C wrapper, so people can port it to another language.

me learning openGL right now: 🙃

This is the only thing me and him have in common lol. Also if someone wants to try out a new font, check out input mono. You can customise it to some extent, and re-produce most major monospace font styles, with more legibility.

I'm using an LG screen that has a 16x18 ratio. It pretty great! Lots of space vertically and the same amount of width as a normal monitor.

I'd pay to see a reaction from him to like a Temple OS documentary lmfaoooooo

Who's gonna tell Phil Fish and Jon Blow that there Japan ≠ Nintendo?

So tired these days. Can't concentrate on anything.

Jonathan Blow is stuck in the past and is bitter that Rust is better than what he knows, and it's too hard for him to learn so he just says it's bad. Also he is bald and lonely :(

Zig, Odin, etc. We need a breakdown of what advantages Jai has over these

By this logic other programming languages would still have these issues but they would break while you are using them instead of warning you beforehand

At work we were blessed with docker because it let me work on two embedded projects at once since they needed two different version compilers

If you're an Indi, use something like GoDot.

Good take, nowadays beginner programmers are not taught how to program but how to conform to OOP principles. And that's hurting both developers and the OOP paradigm. OOP's a just a tool, often times is best to use that tool for designing your public API's yet to do this everywhere is nonsensical, why would I spend hours writing a complex interface hierarchy when it won't even be exported by the module? It may be more extendible for the future but then again I will rewrite it once when I (if I ever) need to actually extend, that is far more efficient than doing it the "OOP way" in the first place.

Mr jBLOW ME is totally clueless. Rust is winning 🦀🦀🦀

That guy is basically that senior dev you meet at your job, who has 20 years of experience, spent his whole career on the same tech but never got offered the opportunity to be a tech lead or architect. And there is a huge reason why. "You end up taking on all these very large belief structures that are very hard to conform to." No, they are hard to conform to *for you*. That guy basically confessed that he absolutely can't work in a team and conform to a team thought pattern, which is why abstraction exists. So his way has to be the real way: "abstraction sucks". Which is also why this guy only released two games in something like fifteen years.

at least rust exists

Every time Jon talks about how bad Rust is, if you listen closely, all he is really saying is that he is more skilled with something else, not actually commenting on the quality of the language. His argument breaks down to, "I don't know how to do this properly in Rust but I do know how in some other language. Therefore Rust is bad"

I guess one can put up Alan Kays original definition of object oriented and say that C++'s is bad, but does that actually help? What Alan Kay had in mind is a lot like what we now call an agent system. Now, an agent system can sometimes be nice, with emphasis on 'sometimes'. Object orientation is useful in a much broader context. And one does not even have to have one of the famous object oriented languages. Even the linux kernel, written in C uses object orientation quite a lot. Johnathan Blow is very much correct that people have gone overboard in their usage of object orientation. It is absolutely not useful to fit all concepts in the world in some grand hierarchy of all possible stuff. Also, many objects don't need to inherit from anything and are quite well off as a standalone class. Also, some operations don't need to be methods. E.g., the sine function has no reason whatsoever to be a method, it can be a standalone function. But I also think that at least 50% of code lives quite happily inside objects. As soon as you have a bit of data and think that you would rather have people use it through a defined set of methods instead of directly being able to do anything with it, you have a case for an object. And even if you were to decide to make the data public, if there are functions that belong very strongly to the data one might as well make them methods. To summarize: there really is not all that much wrong with object orientation in C++....

WebGPU is the closest we have to a modern, efficient and cross-platform graphics API we have. Despite the name, it's a great API to use in C, C++ or any other language. Other than that, there's one more reason to use OpenGL (or an API that provides OpenGL): web browser support. Specifically, OpenGL ES 3.0 which is well translated to WebGL 2.0.

Imagine when J Blow discovers you can't move your taskbar LMAO.

means no one can replace c++ for games.

Jon is not very knowledgeable about OOP. He takes it to extreme and then starts to argue with himself xD I can bet that he can program only solo because nobody else would wanna work with him in a team. He thinks that everything has to be super simplified at all times, then proceeds to write insane blankets of cryptic code with ton of comments, creating an incomprehensible mess without even touching OOP. How's even anyone taking him serious on programming advice, it's funnyAF

I guess this is why I still fire up the C64 and develop in 6502 assembly, albeit with a modern assembler and UltimateII cartridge to forsake on tapes/floppies. But the directness and understanding every aspect of the hardware, is so much fun.

"The introduction of numbers as coordinates is an act of violence." - Hermann Weyl Tensor calculus all the way

Fast-forward 5 minutes to skip interviewer monolog.

this person is confused and hating on everything out there and he speaks like some expert know it how with this bs authority

He says that his projects would not be completed if they were 10% harder, and since Rust has more friction, then the projects would have never been finished. But what about the argument that Rust reduces technical debt through friction? Note: I don't like Rust.

Object Oriented thinking replaced mathematics, that's why modern programming suck

Braid 2: Pigtails