Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

android.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 393 posts

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#291

Post by Groxx »

kungito wrote: post #226
mondoshawan wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to this directly because of numerous reasons, chiefly among them being that I don't get to make those decisions. Standard disclaimer follows: I rejoined in the last two years, what follows are my opinions, these opinions are my own, blah blah. Android has never been about driving the hardware narrative -- it's always been about building a phone with mostly open contributions and driving the start of a w…

Google throws money at problems which don't generate revenue all the time. I feel like all it takes is someone inside Google with enough leverage to push it through without the thing having to make business sense

tbh, Android consistently having a good bluetooth experience would probably be good for the platform.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#292

Post by soulkito »

blep-arsh wrote: post #212
akersten wrote: post #18

This is great news. Hopefully it fixes a lot of the jank that I've always experienced with Android Bluetooth. I don't think I've ever had a smooth experience - even with a supposedly flagship device (Pixel 4a!) I've encountered all of the following problems: * Devices getting stuck at max volume (thankfully not headphones) * Devices getting stuck at really low volumes * Devices randomly switching between absolute vol…

Hah, I've experienced the absolute/relative volume bug. Sony headphones sometimes end up connecting with independent (relative?) volume controls and then switching the volume control from independent to absolute when you use a track skip gesture. The volume goes to the max instantly as a result. One of the reasons I'm staying away from wireless Sony headphones.

Yep that happens to me every now and then..

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#293

Post by nicoburns »

Thaxll wrote: post #271
nicoburns wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that exactly what makes it successful partial migration?

You need to defind partial, because 90% of the codebase is still C++.

Some thoughts:

1. Firefox is a huge codebase. 10% of that is still quite a bit.

2. Some highly complex core parts of firefox such as the rendering engine are at least partly written in Rust.

3. The bits written in Rust are not all isolated from the bits written in C++. In places they intertwine at a function level of granularity.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#294

Post by mandelken »

londons_explore wrote: post #289
mandelken wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to expand? Is that why Software Define Radio is still so much a niche and expensive?

There are a gazillion patents on radio related stuff. Nearly all standards have associated patents. Companies already in the industry typically have cross-licensing agreements - ie. I can use your patents if you can use mine. Either that or they just violate each others patents knowing that a patent war would be mutual destruction and in neither companies interests. But a newcomer has nothing to offer - the minute th…

Yikes, that sounds pretty harsh. So how would a new player be able do enter?

I thought only the hardware could be patented, not the software, and so SDR would level the playing field, but that's perhaps too naive?

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#295

Post by mondoshawan »

gecko wrote: post #286
mondoshawan wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to this directly because of numerous reasons, chiefly among them being that I don't get to make those decisions. Standard disclaimer follows: I rejoined in the last two years, what follows are my opinions, these opinions are my own, blah blah. Android has never been about driving the hardware narrative -- it's always been about building a phone with mostly open contributions and driving the start of a w…

Prior to Android, all we had were closed source low powered feature phones and Blackberries. I...what? Even if we want to ignore the iPhone for whatever reason, the Palm Treo, Nokia N900, and Windows Phone were firmly established by the time Android started getting demoed--and that was the variant that was very much reminiscent of Windows Phone, with a strong emphasis on the cursor keys over a touchscreen. The rest o…

I missed a comma in that: closed source phones, low power feature phones, and Blackberries. The N900 is a different, rare breed that did not see widespread adoption.

Fun fact: the first Android phone was the sooner, and it looked and behaved much like a blackberry. Still have mine, in fact.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#296

Post by nicoburns »

kllrnohj wrote: post #244
nicoburns wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not better-enough to motivate switching away from C in places where C is still used I suspect zig will eventually fill this niche. Proper arrays and strings and better compile time execution support while still being a small, simple, explicit language are quite significant improvements on C.

But why wouldn't I use Rust in those scenarios, which gives me even more safety & compile-time bug checking? Zig isn't actually a small or simple language, after all, that's just marketing bullshit. Manual, mostly unassisted memory management isn't simple, and compile time evaluation & reflection isn't small. It keeps making claims about being simpler because it doesn't have macros or metaprogramming, but that's incr…

It think zig makes quite a bit of sense for micro-controllers where you need really precise control of things, avoid lots of bugs simply by having all memory statically allocated, and you need to do a lot of unsafe bit twiddling anyway to interact with hardware.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#297

Post by Daho0n »

cultyyy123 wrote: post #232
ModernMech wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "new" and "delete" considered as bad practices. Depending on what kind of work you do, you may not have a choice as to whether you get to you smart pointers or not. Our students go into work with decades-old codebases littered with new and delete. They need to know what they do. > You claimed that you don't have to teach Manual Memory management in Rust so why not do the same for C++? Because there are no old rust…

I have worked with decades old codebases. I use up-to-date compiler where you get to use smart pointers and all the Modern C++ features. It's your fault if you not teach them how to upgrade the compiler. There is zero risk when compiling C++98 with C++11. It's also student fault if he selects a company with C++98 codebase. The student shall do due diligence. It's my advice for you to teach the Modern C++ before drivi…

>It's also student fault if he selects a company with C++98 codebase. The student shall do due diligence.

So you are saying they should (as totally newbies) ask to go through a company's code before accepting a job?

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#298

Post by mondoshawan »

edent wrote: post #285
mondoshawan wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to this directly because of numerous reasons, chiefly among them being that I don't get to make those decisions. Standard disclaimer follows: I rejoined in the last two years, what follows are my opinions, these opinions are my own, blah blah. Android has never been about driving the hardware narrative -- it's always been about building a phone with mostly open contributions and driving the start of a w…

> Prior to Android, all we had were closed source low powered feature phones and Blackberries. Symbian was open source, ran on millions of smartphones - most of which had app stores and web browsers. Some of which had touchscreens, GPS, augmented reality features etc. Don't get me wrong - Android has been brilliant. But let's not completely rewrite history, eh?

Right. I didn't think I was trying to rewrite history -- I'm simply pointing out a gap in the market that Android was attempting to fill. Asking me to enumerate everything out there at the time is silly -- especially given the haze of memory.

Symbian was far more popular in Europe than it ever was Stateside, so bear that in mind. I had to import my Nokia E70 gullwing phone before I received my sooner, and what functionality it had was okay, but the browser was hardly more than a WAP browser in a feature phone. The app store was barely there as well, including only a handful of very simple apps at the time.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#299

Post by IshKebab »

toast0 wrote: post #108
mondoshawan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a unique relationship to its hardware, and the money to bend vendor's firmware to their will. Half of the problem with Bluetooth is the host stack. The other half is the firmware running on the controller on the other side of HCI. If the controller ever gets screwed up, the host stack can only disconnect from HCI and totally restart the controller.

The third half is the bluetooth firmware on the other device. The fourth half is the other firmwares on the other device. The fifth half is the specification(s). The sixth half is the RF environment.

But those are the same for iOS, yet Bluetooth on iOS is far better than on Android.

Re: Android's new Bluetooth stack rewrite (Gabeldorsh) is written with Rust

#300

Post by vagrantJin »

oriolid wrote: post #99
est31 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The buying power that Apple has for designing in a particular chip is much bigger than any individual Android manufacturer (even Samsung) Why does Samsung have smaller buying power than Apple? Doesn't Samsung sell more phones than them? Or is it because while Samsung sells more phones in total, Apple still has the most successful single models?

It's because Samsung can get away with selling total garbage. I work on an audio-related app, and a huge majority of the hacks in the app to work around bugs in phones are for different Samsung models. Still more than half of our users keep buying them.

Bruv. I have a samsung. I'm touched.

We've been together 4 years, its USB port is a little loose now. Too much charging everyday, but the screen is still pristine. The camera is fine so we can go out and take photos at the beach. I'm happy man. It does what it said it would do and did it. And still doing it.

Post reply on HN