Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | xx__yy's commentslogin

I don't know the answer, just asking the question: Is/Was curses available at the time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curses_%28programming_library%...

I only remember conio at the time, but without internet you just used what Microsoft gave you. The BBSes I used may have had it, but it's hard to use something if you don't know it exists.

It does look like there is a recent port: https://github.com/wmcbrine/PDCurses

So my guess is curses was not available to DOS at the time, only Unix systems.


I'm guessing that PC-Hack 1.0, the ancestor of Nethack, contains a fair subset of curses, and pdcurses is from 01987 according to the bottom of https://github.com/wmcbrine/PDCurses/blob/master/docs/HISTOR.... But on the IBM, curses mostly solved the problem of porting Unix software to MS-DOS. The problems it solved on Unix, like minimizing characters transmitted to the terminal, papering over differences between terminal types, and setting cbreak mode, just didn't exist.


Most of us coding at the time only cared about Turbo Vision, starting with Turbo Pascal 6. and Turbo C++ 3.0.

Or the other variant being TUI libraries for Clipper.

By 1994, most folks on PC were already doing Windows 3.x, and only using MS-DOS for games.

I only got to learn about curses years later.


>in 1994? You wish. Turbo C++/Pascal was widely used under DOS, things truly began to change with WIndows 95 and even until 1997 DOS wasn't fully dead because it had very complex uses with DOS extenders. Windows 95 was an unstable piece of crap and for tons of industrial cases tons of people booted it in DOS mode to launch really advanced software. By 1994 you would even get multimedia CD's made for DOS with ease.


Yes, I am a 70's child that started coding in 1986.

By 1994, most people already had Turbo Pascal and C++ on Windows 3.x, I happen to have such boxes.

Turbo Pascal for Windows 1.5 and Turbo Pascal 7 both supported Windows 3.x.

Turbo C++ 3.1 onwards also did Windows 3.x.

Industrial use cases used purpose built OSes, and unstable piece of crap applies to all 8 and 16 bit home computer OSes without MMUs.


AFAIK, curses worked with ANSI codes while conio directly accessed the screen buffer. ANSI support on DOS wasn’t enabled commonly as it needed a separate device driver, ANSI.SYS, to work, and it usually made DOS text output slower.

So, even if curses were available on DOS at the time, nobody would have preferred to use it.


As an aside, since it seems the other comments already address the core issue...

No one should be using Lodash in 2025, it mutates your collections, use `ramda` (https://ramdajs.com/) instead.

Unfortunately, a lot of the early core existing packages have dependencies in lodash, or another packages that does so too.


Ehh what. I would give some merit to arguments like "no one should use lodash in 2025 because you can do most of it with built-ins nowadays" or maybe because it doesn't tree-shake well or maybe even because it doesn't seem to have much active development now.

But stating matter-of-factly that no one should use it because some of its well-documented functions are mutating ones and not functional-style, and should instead use one particular FP library out of the many out there, is not very cool.


I was having roughly the same thought. I thought to myself, this is something my son would produce, and I'd be super proud, and see through the 90's/Yahoo-ish style.

Then I saw the date of the last update: http://www.hawaiihighways.com/what's-new.htm So comprehensive!


I like this solution better, no bash running a string command.

Could easily prefix eventually_succeeds with timeout.


A bit of a nostalgic read, I bet everyone remembers the first time they tried ChatGPT-4, and the conversations about it at gatherings/BBQs.

But I don't feel like it's gotten any better, if anything I feel like it's been "dumbed-down" a bit (possibly from added safeguards/censorship).

AI coding assistants (e.g. Co-Pilot) has made me a more productive developer, but only in the sense that I type less boiler plate (or ceremony code).


>A bit of a nostalgic read, I bet everyone remembers the first time they tried ChatGPT-4, and the conversations about it at gatherings/BBQs.

No, and no. Never tried it. Nobody in my circles does.

The AI hype bubble illustrated.

People who keep telling me I will be left behind keep not producing all this amazing, flawless, refined software that AI was supposed to build.


> allow for the formulation of better sources of protein

I don't think the "National Cattleman’s Beef Association" wants that, just to know that beef>Soy is enough.


I wonder if using mouthwash that kills "99%" bacteria make this product useless over time?

Also, does using mouthwash daily negate the need for this product?


Brushing, flossing, and mouthwash doesn't kill all of the bacteria in your mouth. Your entire mouth is coated with a biofilm... and after cleaning, your mouth gets recolonized by bacteria from between your teeth, beneath the gums, plaque, and other small crevices in your mouth.


In their application instructions they mention that rinses such as chlorhexidine might eliminate the new bacteria:

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1m2SEWL_rrlQLEi1OiD9K...


Probably, but the difference I see is that single application of this product is enough (as opposed to buying mouthwash and other stuff that's often discussed here like toothpaste with Novamin for the rest of your life).


I mean, weren't you going to buy mouthwash anyway...?


I'd hope not. I mean, what would be the point? Get your mouth colonized by this "harmless" bacteria and then kill it?


Fix my bad-smelling breath, which I am guessing this stuff doesn't fix.



Thanks - interesting talk


Just like that time my taxi driver was telling me about "investing" in Bitcoin


Thanks for the links. PCjs is amazing!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: