But C++98 is so different to even C++11. Bjarne's book covering C++11 read completely differently to the 98 version, I found.

That just adds to the incoherency.

It's why I've found Rust a joy - enough had happened in programming languages, that it was able to reinvent C++ with some of the best parts of the Haskell/ML/Scala family, some of the ergonomics of Python/nodejs, and bringing the borrow checker too.

C++ is this weird amalgam of like 7 different generations of languages.

But by far the worst part is the developer hostility behind the idea of UB. "Oh, this is not an error, it will compile, we will just secretly stab you in the back."

You can get good and avoid it, and there are tools to help you, but why is that at all a reasonable stance for the definition of a language?

Saying this about Rust and C++ is like saying the kitchen you just built is cleaner than the old kitchen you used for 50 years. Get back to me in another few years.

I agree for the comparison.

Now for Rust I don’t think it is going to change a lot. Because it is based on ML, it has the best foundations and all features are known. The question is more how much Haskell vs script/imperative do you want your language to be, and what’s the purpose of the language rather than we had the wrong paradigm and found a new better one. For Rust 99% of its features are known and most are already implemented.

Maybe things around the borrow checker, and await, but beyond that nothing as much as what C++ saw in its history. Even more when for instance you see the article from the guy doing Gleam where traits (impl) are not necessary, all you need is data and function to have the same functionality. Or how ML have been the main factor to most new languages or new features to existing languages.

The future is ML, with languages dedicated to specific use cases and niches. And also ML languages easily readable by AI.

Then I will feel the same about Rust! There's nothing wrong with wanting to throw out the janky accretion every 30 years for a redesign.

After 3-4 years, sure. But eventually enough has changed it's worth redoing.

I built my career on C++ and I agree with you. Rust is just superior in almost every way. C++ is dead to me for new projects.

What is slow about Shotcut? Genuinely curious

Shotcut can only leverage the GPU hardware acceleration during the render output phase.

Typically, some people get a DaVinci Resolve license card when buying the "Speed Editor" hardware for a $100 more than just the software. That silly little wheel does wonders for quickly scrubbing though media. GPU VRAM starts to matter again as color grading is one area people want to see preview quickly.

Best regards =3

Very informative, thank you. I have been using Shotcut for a while and wrote a frei0r plugin but it needs migrating to the new 10 bit MLT framework. I have been using Shotcut with 4K footage and it is indeed very slow so I have been using proxy files.

I did have PowerDirector but have been very disappointed with it so wrote a converter to convert their format to Shotcut's XML format so I can move my projects to Shotcut.

Ideally I'd use DaVinci Resolve but as the free one doesn't support 10 bit I can't try any of the HLG videos I shot on holiday.

For our use-case, a $50 course package sale for getting Blender -> Fusion workflow just made sense.

https://www.udemy.com/course/davinci-resolve-training-course...

https://www.udemy.com/course/fusion_blender_vfx/ (needs the paid studio version)

Compared to other options, the one-time cost was our best tradeoff for the project. It was a much better value than adobe subscriptions water-marking everything. A low bar to clear, but important to some...

Cinelerra GG should have EXR and 10bit support, but our folks had a hard time figuring out the program even with a manual. ymmv =3

Shotcut also has 10 bit support, which is wonderful (even if the display in-program is NOT 10bit).

I agree that there is a decline in usability. If you took a Mac from those early days, it is still very usable and everything is where you'd expect it to be. In recent years this has changed and the general iOS-ification of the OS has occurred. I have avoided upgrading to Tahoe due to seeing how awful my wife's iPhone looks now. It looks like a children's toy.

You can add books using the Calibre software which converts epubs and mobi files I think. I use this with a Kindle Paperwhite 2nd Generation and avoid Amazon interaction.

Yes, it was called Active Desktop and it was much older than Win2K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Desktop

If you changed the colour scheme on Windows 98, none of the cloud images were transparent in Explorer (they assumed the background was white) so you'd end up with these weird clouds/sky fading into a white background and then a hard line into whatever colour you'd set your background to.

The desktop was very sluggish if you added an active desktop to it, as IE4 had to run; at least it was on my underpowered machine. Additionally it came with a screensaver that you could interact with, which was odd because normally moving the mouse dismissed the screensaver.

Active Desktop was a different thing, on top of what I was talking about.

But the post parent to yours was correct about HTML being in Win2k: https://imgur.com/ncvvBY0

That infopanel on the left is HTML.

Ah ok. Unfortunately I cannot look at that page on imgur as I am in the UK and it's blocked here.

that is insane. why is that blocked in the UK? or is it imgur that blocks the UK? everything is weird these days.

I would rather more manufacturers started releasing ARM laptops instead! I'd love to run Linux on a decent ARM laptop. Unfortunately given the lukewarm reception to Windows 11 on ARM (likely due to the lukewarm reception in tech circles to Windows 11 itself), it seems manufacturers aren't in a rush to make them.

Why are you even paying them a single penny if they're the most untrustworthy company you've dealt with?! That seems a lot of money to be giving a company you don't trust.

Annoyingly it doesn't even maximize properly. You have to use alt-click for sensible behaviour.

They also decided about 10? years ago to make it behave as a "fullscreen" button which was really useless to me on a Mac Pro with 2 screens, where it would only ever "zoom" to one screen and then make the other screen display the desktop wallpaper - not the actual desktop - the wallpaper.

Useless.

This is true for the most part, unless you adjust keyboard settings in System Settings to let all UI elements be focusable with the keyboard (for tabbing between UI elements). I think it used to be under "keyboard" but they might have moved it in the recent Control Center reshuffle.