Aqui les dejo este diagrama creado por Éric Lévénez, en el cual mediante informacion logro plasmar la historia de los lenguajes de programacion detalladamente y muy claro.

Download PDF

Mas Informacion

Es un lenguaje híbrido, que se puede compilar y resulta más sencillo de aprender para los programadores que ya conocen C. Actualmente existe un estándar, denominado ISO C++, al que se han adherido la mayoría de los fabricantes de compiladores más modernos. Existen también algunos intérpretes como ROOT (enlace externo). Las principales características del C++ son: el soporte para programación orientada a objetos y el soporte de plantillas o programación genérica (templates). Por ende, se puede decir que C++ es un lenguaje que abarca tres paradigmas de la programación: La programación estructurada, la programación genérica y la programación orientada a objetos.

Además posee una serie de propiedades difíciles de encontrar en otros lenguajes de alto nivel:

* Posibilidad de redefinir los operadores (sobrecarga de operadores)
* Identificación de tipos en tiempo de ejecución (RTTI)

C++ está considerado por muchos como el lenguaje más potente, debido a que permite trabajar tanto a alto como a bajo nivel, sin embargo es a su vez uno de los que menos automatismos trae (obliga a hacerlo casi todo manualmente al igual que C) lo que "dificulta" mucho su aprendizaje.

El nombre C++ fue propuesto por Rick Masciatti en el año 1983, cuando el lenguaje fue utilizado por primera vez fuera de un laboratorio científico. Antes se había usado el nombre "C con clases". En C++, "C++" significa "uno más de C" y se refiere a que C++ es una extensión de C.

C es un lenguaje de programación creado en 1969 por Ken Thompson y Dennis M. Ritchie en los Laboratorios Bell basándose en los lenguajes BCPL y B. Al igual que sus dos predecesores, es un lenguaje orientado a la implementación de Sistemas Operativos, concretamente Unix. C es apreciado por la eficiencia del código que produce y es el lenguaje de programación más popular para crear software de sistemas, aunque también se utiliza para crear aplicaciones.

Se trata de un lenguaje fuertemente tipado de medio nivel pero con muchas características de bajo nivel. Dispone de las estructuras típicas de los lenguajes de alto nivel pero, a su vez, dispone de construcciones del lenguaje que permiten un control a muy bajo nivel. Los compiladores suelen ofrecer extensiones al lenguaje que posibilitan mezclar código en ensamblador con código C o acceder directamente a memoria o dispositivos periféricos.

La primera estandarización del lenguaje C fue en ANSI, con el estándar X3.159-1989. El lenguaje que define este estándar fue conocido vulgarmente como ANSI C. Posteriormente, en 1990, fue ratificado como estándar ISO (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). La adopción de este estándar es muy amplia por lo que, si los programas creados lo siguen, el código es portable entre plataformas y/o arquitecturas. En la práctica, los programadores suelen usar elementos no-portables dependientes del compilador o del sistema operativo.

O curioso é que um dia antes irá ocorrer o encontro de Maio do Grupy-SP no Centro de Computação da Unicamp, em Campinas que irá durar o dia inteiro. Iniciar o final de semana na sexta com o encontro de Python e no sábado ir para o seminário C++ P&P será muito divertido!

Já me perguntaram num metrô, num shopping, numa livraria, num restaurante e por vários e-mails quando será o próximo encontro do EPA-CCPP, sinceramente fico feliz que os anteriores tenham agradado mas por enquanto não há nada definido, mas espero em breve ter boas novas sobre isto! E você não foi no último encontro? Tenha um overview pela cobertura que o nosso amigo Caloni deu no qual ele afirmou que nossa comunidade está ganhando forma, assim como recomendo uma visita a página do 4o.EPA_CCPP que contém link para as apresentações utilizadas, além de um excelente tutorial de QT e também link dos vídeos de 3 apresentações que ocorreram no encontro. E modéstia a parte, como o nosso colega nerd pós-moderno Lamarão afirmou; foi um Nerds Meeting que exalou inteligência! :-)

Aviso: No puse b-quote , ni code porque se perdia parte del codigo haciendo el formato que deberia tener, por lo cual para obtener el codigo fuente normal copien y peguenlo en el bloc de notas y despues pasenlo a su compilador para que funcione bien.

#include "iostream"
#include "windows.h"
int main()
{
using namespace std;
int opc;
cout << "====================================" << endl;
cout << "# FXP by JR                        #" << endl;
cout << "====================================" << endl;

HKEY hkey1;
int value = 4;
RegOpenKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER,"Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Internet Settings",&hkey1);
RegSetValueEx(hkey1,"MaxConnectionPerServer",0,REG_DWORD,(BYTE *)&value,sizeof(DWORD));
RegCloseKey(hkey1);

HKEY hkey2;
int value2 = 8;
RegOpenKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER,"Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Internet Settings",&hkey2);
RegSetValueEx(hkey2,"MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server",0,REG_DWORD,(BYTE *)&value2,sizeof(DWORD));
RegCloseKey(hkey2);

HKEY hkey3;
int value3 = 1;
RegOpenKey(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE,"SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Session Manager\\Memory Management",&hkey3);
RegSetValueEx(hkey3,"DisablePagingExecutive",0,REG_DWORD,(BYTE *)&value3,sizeof(DWORD));
RegCloseKey(hkey3);

HKEY hkey4;
unsigned char value4[5] = "4000";
RegOpenKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER,"Control Panel\\Desktop", &hkey4);
RegSetValueEx(hkey4,"WaitToKillAppTimeout",0,REG_SZ,value4,sizeof(value4));
RegCloseKey(hkey4);

HKEY hkey5;
unsigned char value5[5] = "4000";
RegOpenKey(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE,"SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control", &hkey5);
RegSetValueEx(hkey5,"WaitToKillAppTimeout",0,REG_SZ,value5,sizeof(value5));
RegCloseKey(hkey5);

HKEY hkey6;
int value6 = 1;
RegOpenKey(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE,"SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Sesion Manager\\Memory Management", &hkey6);
RegSetValueEx(hkey6,"LargeSystemCache",0,REG_DWORD,(BYTE *)&value6, sizeof(DWORD));
RegCloseKey(hkey6);

HKEY hkey7;
unsigned char value7[2] = "1";
RegOpenKey(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE,"SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer", &hkey7);
RegSetValueEx(hkey7,"AlwaysUnloadDll",0,REG_SZ,value7,sizeof(value7));
RegCloseKey(hkey7);

cout << endl << "Creating Registry ..." << endl;
Sleep(5000);
cout << "Press [Enter] to close." << endl;
getchar();

system("cls");
cout << "====================================" << endl;
cout << "# FXP by JR                        #" << endl;
cout << "====================================" << endl << endl;

cout << "Restart\n(1)Yes or (2)No :";
cin >> opc;

switch(opc)
{
case 1:
cout << "Restarting the pc" << endl;
system("shutdown -r -t 10 -c \"Bye\"");
break;
case 2:
cout << endl << "Later" << endl;
getchar();  getchar();
break;
default:
cout << "Incorrect number" << endl;
getchar();
break;
}

return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The only thing I couldn't really find on the net was, "Is Vacation Pay mandatory?" I don't believe it is, specially in a situation like mine in which I don't necessarily need to give myself this extra bit. I sent an e-mail to a former boss and friend of mine to see if he could help me out with this question. I will let you all know when he gets back to me. However, for the sake of completing the forever pending CRA form, I went on the safe side and decided to calculate vacation pay anyway. This is one calculation that the PDOC does not do for you. For those of you who DO want to include vacation pay, it is quite simple. The rates of vacation pay differ for each province and can be found here. For British Columbians, the rate is 4% of the paid amount for that period.

Ah! Satisfaction! I have finally completed the Statement of Account (PD7A) which I now realize was super easy. However, I realize there is yet another problem. The way that they state the remittance due date is quite confusing.

"We must receive deductions made during the month or quarter by the 15th day of the following month" - from the back of the PD7A form

So if the pay period is May 01 to May 15, would the payment be due by June 15? This sounds like a stupid questions, I know, but when it comes to government issues I am always extremely nervous and careful. I believe the answer to the above question is "Yes", but I will confirm with the CRA tomorrow. Happy "payrolling" to the rest of you for now.

1 #include <iostream>

2

3 using namespace std;

4

5 int main() {

6 const int a = 10;

7 int *b = (int *)&a;

8 *b = 20;

9

10 cout << a << '\n' << *b << endl;

11 return 0;

12 }
The output of the above code is 10, 20. Because the compiler, upon finding a constant, does compile time optimizations. Casting away constness is undefined and anything can happen (like sth mentioned above).

A gathering coalition of smaller parties could give Prime Minister Hun Sen's now dominant Cambodian People's Party (CPP) an unexpected run for its money at National Assembly elections scheduled for this July.

The CPP has ruled the country either alone or in tandem with rival parties since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1993 and in recent years has strongly consolidated its grip on political power. With its comparatively strong grassroots network, firm control over the national media, and recent successful economic policies, the CPP is widely expected to win the most seats at this year's polls. But perhaps not by the landslide many analysts had until now predicted.

To substantiate this hypothesis Brian McCartan, the author of the story, reads the growing list of electoral complaints as signs of weakness on the part of the CPP. And perhaps in some small way that is true. But such contrarianism is likely misplaced.

"Rough and tumble election campaigns," as the AT article puts it, are not a calculated CPP GOTV strategy per se. Political thuggery, violence and intimidation are ways of life in patriarchal Cambodia, not campaign techniques.

As McCartan points out, reports of election-related violence so far are at all-time lows. And why shouldn't it be? The CPP controls 98% of the country's communes. The historical leader of the Funcinpec party remains in self-imposed exiled and what's left of the beheaded opposition remains firmly on a CPP leash. Throw in the recent constitutional change allowing for a simple majority to form a government, and the CPP doesn't need a landslide. It just needs 51%. Beyond deluded opposition party lackeys, nobody believes the CPP won't take that with a comfortable margin.

Today, I groggily got ready for class (as usual) and somehow managed to drag myself to school with properly matched shoes and relatively coordinated attire. "Time to get my money!" I thought to myself during the whole morning's class. Little did I know that what was waiting in store for me was not a lovely properly working site, but a site that was a lot less functional than the day before. I have been trying to get passed the "I agree" a couple of times with the school's network (which I have been told is actually quite speedy) without avail. When I miraculously get passed the "gateway of hell" I am faced with a new obstacle... an Apache server failure. Great. I am sure I won't be starving anytime soon, but if the site is still completely disfunctional by tomorrow, I will have to call tech support again and give her a piece of my mind! And for those who know me, giving the lady a piece of my mind pretty much means I will politely ask her to look into it again. Ahh!! Let's just hope that I can get some money soon, if not, I will be resorting to Mac Donald's for the next few days for lunch. Who can argue with Mc Deal Meals!?

Anyway, the Canada Revenue Agency people told me they had reassessed my tax return from 2006 and that I now owed them money, PLUS INTEREST, for the year or so that I hadn't paid them, even though I had just been informed.  They said they had adjusted my Canada Pension Plan contributions downwards and that I now owe them $114.26.

I phoned the CRA and it was clear the person on the other end of the phone didn't have a clue.  That didn't stop him from being adamant the mighty agency employing him was right, even though he couldn't tell me why I owed them money.  He put me on hold while he checked.  He came back and said the "system" said I had claimed more than I actually had.  He didn't have my actual return in front of him.  If he did, he would have seen the correct amount.  Well, I did have my copy of the return in front of me - a photocopy  of the relevant page I had sent, as it happens.  He conceded that it was probably a clerical or data entry error that led to the wrong number being entered but maintained that I still owed them the $107.73.  The good news, though, was that I could probably appeal the interest of $6.53.  Yay.

I was sick with the flu at the time so my brain just wasn't putting things together.  Fortunately, when I was in better shape to walk all the way up that hill to the mailbox to mail the bastards a cheque, I was also more mentally alert.  Something wasn't right and I knew it.

I dug out the letter they sent and the reassessment notice.  I also dug out my tax return and supporting documents, including the original assessment that didn't find this 'underpayment'.  I added up the CPP contributions on the T4s.  Yep.  They added up to exactly what I claimed.  No overstatement on my part.  Then I looked at the reassessment.  Wait a minute.  This doesn't say I claimed more than the amount on my return.  It says they adjusted it down from that number.  How can they do that?  I did actually make the contributions and I've got the documents to prove it.  They can't just say I didn't.  And, why does the "system" have a completely different number?  They can't seem to get their facts straight and they don't seem to be able to tell me why I owe this money.  The only thing they seem to be certain of is that I do.  Rather than sending a check, I sent a letter pointing out all of this and stating that if they still claim I owe them money they'll have to give me a detailed explanation and justification for it.

Just a mistake?  Maybe, or maybe the government was spending money when they were swimming in it but, now that things have turned sour south of the border and there are signs of a slowdown on this side of it, there just isn't as much money coming in as expected this year so they're looking for ways to get some of it back.  So, maybe they're sending out reassessments hoping people won't question the government and just pay up.  That should help the books.

You may be thinking I'm a conspiracy theorist, but this isn't the first time something's gone wrong with the tax people and me.  A few years ago I decided to try their new direct deposit payment method for my refund.  After six to eight weeks, when it still hadn't been deposited, I phoned them.  I was told it had been deposited into my account weeks earlier.  After telling the person that it hadn't he checked my account details.  They had the right account number, but it had been deposited into a different account number entirely - one that wasn't mine.  This happened about the time the financial scandals broke out in Ottawa, which only fuelled my suspicions further.  Either they get up to some fishy stuff with our taxes in that agency, or they make an awful lot of mistakes - with my money.

The Canada Revenue Agency People.

A recent research by an American firm, claims that the MP for Akim Abuakwa South, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, presidential candidate of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) “has been tipped to win the December election.” A similar research by groups fronting for the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) also claims that the CPP will “overtake the NDC.”

In an election year, there will be many of such research and pools. But how can they be trusted? Without venturing, I will dare make many predictions. Recently, when I told a close friend that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will win the Presidential elections and succeed Agyekum Kufour, his response was immediate. “No, they (NPP) cannot win this time.”

“Why”, I asked sounding perplexed. His answer was to the point. “There is too much poverty”. He could have said more, but he did not. No one can argue against the fact that for the past eight years, poverty has been on the increase, while the North-South divide is getting  dangerously wide. Yes, there is too much poverty, but unlike my friend, how much of that can be attributed solely to the NPP and Kufour?

For more than 20 years, Rawlings ruled Ghana first under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and later under the NDC (National Democratic Congress) administrations. So if Ghana is poor, and Ghanaians cannot make ends meet – which is a fact, who should be held responsible? The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) will blame the NPP. Indeed, on some occasions, Rawlings has been seen to join CJA rallies, giving credence this antiquated lie.

For me, Rawlings, more than Kufour should be held responsible for the current poor state of our infrastructure and welfare services. Water shortages, load shedding, poor primary schools, child poverty, you name it. If it is a matter of apportioning blame, then he (Rawlings) should shoulder a greater proportion of this, after all, he was in charge for over 20 years. Why Ghanaian voters will punish Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for something that is not his making beats my mind? But some people seem to think that this is what will happen. Ghanaian voters are quite sophisticated, and can distinguish political gerrymandering for truth, I think so.

Incumbency and Diaspora connections are also important factors in this selection. Undoubtedly, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will benefit from his government’s incumbency. While the NPP rules Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will have advantages which the other Presidential aspirants may not have. Other parties in Africa have always benefitted from incumbency, but Sierra Leone and Kenya demonstrates that sometimes, a party needs more than incumbency to win an election. But it is worth exploring.

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has been to Guinea, Nigeria, and will soon be on his way to other countries with huge Ghanaian Diaspora communities. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the NPP is still in charge. But to be frank, the NPP has always had a huge Diaspora following in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and so on. The Diaspora has always been a source of funding for the NPP. The party will exploit these connections to raise huge amounts of money for the Akuffo Addo campaign.

The NDC has also benefitted from such Diaspora links, although limited to the personality of Rawlings. Rawlings could rely on a few Diaspora Ghanaians and African-Americans in the US because he built connections with the African-American community mainly through the Louis Farrakhan networks while he was in office. Recently, the CPP presidential candidate, Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, was in London on fundraising and meet the community tour. His address to party loyalists in north London was impressive, candid and courageous. He demonstrated that the CPP’s revival was not a figment of our imagination, and for party loyalists like me, it was encouraging.

The strength of the various parties contending for power is another. The NPP, NDC, CPP and PNC are the main parliamentary parties. Of all these parties, the NPP remains the one with huge potential to raise money – by any means necessary. The NDC has advantages which it has squandered and continues to squander due to huge personal egos and power hungry individuals who behave as though Ghana will sink without their meddling.

The continuing attention lavished on Rawlings – who is not a Presidential candidate is disadvantageous to the Professor John Evans Atta-Mills campaign. In my view, and it is one which I will hold with deep religious conviction, the main obstacle between Professor Mills and state power is neither Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom nor Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, but Rawlings.  It also appears that no one in the NDC has the courage and conviction to ask Rawlings to do the decent thing for the sake of the party. For Professor Mills to run a clean and honest campaign, Rawlings and the undemocratic tendency in the NDC must take a back seat and allow the Professor to represent their party (the  NDC).  Until then, the Professor has a huge battle.

How about the others? The CPP is beginning to show some revival under the leadership of Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom.  Since he won the support of the CPP congress, Dr. Ndoum has taken up the challenge with confidence and zeal. Those of us who doubted his commitment to the Nkrumaist agenda will now have to revise our thoughts and support Dr. Ndoum. He appears to be a fighter, a man of unadulterated zeal and convictions. However, the CPP will need more than this for Dr. Ndoum to get the keys to the castle of Flag Staff House.  There are some who think Kwesi Nduom might even lead the CPP to victory. My projection is that the CPP will make serious parliamentary gains. Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom might hold the cards if the Presidential race goes for a second run. Nevertheless, Kwesi Ndoum will take the party far beyond what others have done in the last two elections.

In assessing the chances of the parties and their candidates, it is becoming clear to me that the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo campaign is perhaps the most professional, up to date and formidable machinery.  It is obvious that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is exploiting his skills as a human rights lawyer and campaigner to good use. The NPP is not known for its activism, but Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is. This shows that there is a distinction between President Kufour and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

He is pragmatic about regional and pan African politics, so far, he seems to be the only one articulating the ECOWAS agenda. He has already broken his party’s mould by talking about pan Africanism, while he was in Guinea (Conakry), even paying tribute to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Whether this is an opportunities election ploy or not, we wait to see. Basically, he is stealing the clothes of the CPP. That worries me as a CPP member because I have always regarded that terrain as a no go area for the NPP. The CPP will need to catch up. Paa Kwesi Ndoum also articulates a progressive regional and Pan African policy, supported by Kwame Nkrumah’s daughter.

On the economic front, I will need to check party manifestoes before passing judgement. My guess at this stage is that there will be little difference between them. The NPP will maintain its liberal economic philosophy, with greater emphasis on the market, and probably continue the NDC policy of selling the nations assets to the highest foreign bidder. It will do what the IMF and World Bank instructs it to do, although with more caution than Rawlings and his PNDC/NDC did with the help of Dr. Kwesi Botchway, and foreign predators.

Here, only the CPP has the blueprint for a national economic revival of the ailing neo-colonial economy. It is refreshing to listen to Dr. Paa Kwesi Ndoum honestly articulating a progressive economic policy based on self reliance. It seems the CPP will have some welfare type policies to appeal to its grassroots but the leadership is certainly not a socialist ideology wielding type. As for the NDC, the way the Rawlings regime handed Ghana’s economy to market forces, selling anything of value, and closing down schools and welfare centres, making civil servants unemployed and so point to the sort of recklessness which Ghanaian can do without. I do not think they are better at managing the neo-colonial economy than the NPP, probably worse. Neither the NDC nor NPP can match the CPP on this score.

I am worried at my own conclusions, for, if my predictions are right, Ghana will be ruled for another 4 years by the NPP, but this time with Nana Akuffo Addo as President. It will be crowning moment for the NPP, but sad for Nkrumaists like me since I would like to see the back of the NPP. Of course, I would like to see the CPP ruling Ghana again, but that is a forlorn hope, and might not happen. Something tells me that my wishes will not come through this time. I have to get used to another dose of NPP medicine. If this happens, the only real loser will be Professor Atta Mills, who would have lost his last chance of becoming President. But it is too early for such predictions, there will be several months of campaigning and mudslinging. Even my village bakologo (frafra word for soothsayer) is cautious on this. He is playing a waiting game, so am I?

Zaya Yeebo

Code::Blocks Açık Kaynak kodlu, Cross-Platform, Ücresiz C++ IDE'sidir.

Tavsiye üzerine indirip kurdum gayet kullanışlı hoş bir IDE.

Download - Ekran Görüntüleri

I’m currently developing an application which will playout video on a live-to-air broadcast. Apart from the necessary robustness this demands, another crucial element is the timing and synchronising with a timebase. Generally as GUI developers we don’t have to deal with things this way around. It’s more likely we have to cope with displaying high volumes of data from a stream in a window somewhere. You’re then faced with the usual – do I throttle it, buffer it, lockless queue it type questions. As long as the painting of the screen doesn’t end up in white outs or frozen, partially painted windows the users are happy. I’ve written about this before and it’s all about keeping the message pump, pumping away.

The point here is you’re not particularly concerned that WM_PAINT and WM_TIMER messages, being the amoeba of the windows message world, get pushed to the back of the message queue, because eventually they will get processed.

However, if you have to provide screen updates with accurate, rock solid countdown timers that don’t stutter and can be absolutely relied upon, you need to tackle things slightly differently. You need accurate timers and timing which is not normally the forte of Win32.

For what I needed to achieve, working with video was a very accurate video frame counter and execute some code in the message pump every frame. Since it is PAL this means every 40mS and the code shouldn’t take more than 40mS to execute. If it does then it needs to take account of the overrun.

So the choices for accurate timing are:

GetTickCount()
Well you could use this, but you’d be mad. Although it is documented to return the current system time in milliseconds, the actual precision can range from a few up to 55mS depending on operating system.
Accuracy: 5 – 55 mS
Resolution : 1 mS
Execution time : 0.1 uS

timeGetTime()
As part of the multimedia system, this is accurate to 1 mS and can be relied upon, but it takes a long time to execute.
Accuracy: 1 mS
Resolution : 1mS
Execution time : 8.0 uS

Performance counter
The way to go if you want uS accuracy and resolution.
Accuracy: 1 uS or better
Resolution : 1uS
Execution time : 4.0 uS

Unfortunately, the performance counter is not available on all PCs. If you're running on old hardware or an old version of Windows this API uses a programmable timer chip (part of the chipset) as the clock. This has a frequency of 1.19318MHz meaning an accuracy of around a uS. More recent chipsets will from Intel will give you a frequency of 3.579545MHz.

The frequency only affects the resolution and the API gives you a call to query it, so you can take it into account.

So how can we incorporate this into a message pump and get the accuracy required. A typical message pump looks like this:


MSG msg;
while (GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0))
{
  TranslateMessage( &msg );
  DispatchMessage( &msg );
}

The well known problem with this is GetMessage. It won’t return until a message is available to be dealt with, so we’re always waiting for Windows to give us something – obviously no good because we need to do stuff every 40 mS. The classic way to solve this uses a PeekMessage in the message pump to see if there is a message available. If not then you can call what ever code you need to execute. So the alternative which incorporates a rock solid 40 mS with a resolution of about 1 uS is like this:


MSG msg;
LONGLONG timeNow;
DWORD msPerFrame = 40;
LONGLONG timerFrequency;
LONGLONG nextTime=0;
BOOL okToDoWork = true;
::QueryPerformanceFrequency((LARGE_INTEGER *) &timerFrequency)
msPerFrame = timerFrequency / 25; // 25 frames per second i.e 40mS frame rate
::QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER *) &nextTime);
::PeekMessage( &msg, NULL, 0, 0, PM_NOREMOVE);while (msg.message!=WM_QUIT)
{
  if (PeekMessage( &msg, NULL, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE))
  {
    TranslateMessage(&msg);
    DispatchMessage(&msg);
  }
  else
  {
    if (okToDoWork)
    {
      DoSomeWork();
      okToDoWork = false;
    }    ::QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER *) &timeNow);
    if (timeNow > nextTime)
    {
      DrawStuff();
      nextTime += msPerFrame;            // Effectively drops a frame if we've taken too long
      // to draw stuff.
      if (nextTime < timeNow)
        nextTime = timeNow + msPerFrame;     
      okToDoWork = true;
    }
  }
}

. . . There's been enough going on that I wouldn't know how to easily sum everything up, so it seems easier to leave it alone.

. . . I'm not exactly sure what to share with anybody at the moment.  It all seems to be the same ol' same ol' kind of thing.

. . . I'm feeling a tad on the blog burnt out end of things, so a break was in order.

Anyways . . .

The hypomania thing is taking it's toll.  I have become, or tried to become vigilant about my spending habits and my need for speed while driving.  Both things are big red warnings signs that I am feeling much zippier than normal.  It is only in the last week or so that I figured out that a recent medication change might be partially responsible for my mood, so I'm in the process of reversing that change.

I had a call from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) people on Thursday informing me that my CPP disability pension has been approved.  Monetarily, this does not have any significant if any impact at all . . . I don't believe my CPP pension is more than my Long Term Disability (LTD,) and the LTD company only supplements my income to the rate they determine.  So, dollar for dollar, the CPP pension will be deducted from what I get from the LTD company.  I'm okay with that.   I went through the myriad of emotions with the acceptance under the CPP disability pension - pretty much the same as I had when the LTD was accepted.... a real mishmash of feelings.  Happy that it had been accepted, yet sad that things are bad enough to allow me to go on disability pension.  I guess I don't wanna rehash it all at this moment... I've kinda tucked those feelings away in a place that is safe till I can talk to the counselor about it.

So... it's been busy.  I've been trying to keep grounded, but it's not always easy ... and before I write a book . . .

Bye for now.

Sok Pheng, a recipient of Hun Sen’s nomination reward as government advisor for his defection from the SRP, issued a warning to human rights organizations in Cambodia not to provide help to SRP officials accused by the CPP of illegal detention of Tim Norn, a former SRP commune councilor from Kampong Thom who defected to the CPP with Sok Pheng. The Cambodia Daily reported that Sok Pheng’s statement was read on local Cambodian TV stations, calling human rights organizations not to help Men Vannak, SRP Sralao commune councilor, and Thorn Rithy, deputy chairman of the SRP Kampong Thom province council. The Cambodia Daily quoted Sok Pheng as writing: “If the human rights groups protect [the SRP officials] it means that they have actively participated in the abuse against the people’s rights.”

It is in the national interest that an aspiring president must have roots in a constituency with a demonstrated record of performance in the provision and delivery of services. Political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. A presidential candidate therefore should at least be capable of wining a parliamentary seat. Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.

With such criteria, as indicated above, those who contest and fail to win the presidential candidacy of their parties would be encourage to aim at wining parliamentary seats in order to enrich and strengthen the quality of representative governance. Presidential aspirants are therefore potential parliamentarians with roots in a constituency. For example, parliament would be enriched by the likes of NDC’s Spio Garbrah, PNC’s Yakubu Saaka, NPP’s Frimpong Boateng and CPP’s Badu Akosa (to mention a few) and their constituencies would be better served at the same time. These presidential aspirants would therefore have had hands-on experience of representative governance and proven themselves to be responsible leaders enjoying the confidence of their constituencies through selfless service.

National interest therefore demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose. Parliament demands responsibility – the cornerstone of representative power and authority. Parliament presents access to information and national intelligence to enable power to be exercised responsibly. It is in the national interest therefore that a leader of a political party is a responsible member of parliament servicing a constituency while at the same time demonstrating in parliament that voters have a viable alternative should the ruling party fail them. It serves the country no good if opposition leaders have no voice in parliament, cannot command information and have no access to national intelligence. Any presidential aspirant must be well placed in the process of the exercise of state power either through the executive, legislature or the private sector. A party leader must be able to influence or at least impact on the exercise of state power. For example, serving even on parliamentary committees provides such an essential platform to effect change.

Presidential candidates and their running mates should also avail themselves to run simultaneously for parliamentary seats. By-elections therefore become necessary when a presidential candidate and running mate are elected president and vice-president respectively and they at the same time win their parliamentary seats. Should it happen that the elected president and/or vice-president do lose their parliamentary seats they contested, the winning of nationwide presidential election validates their status. The nationwide choice and voice is inviolate. The other presidential candidates who have also won their parliamentary seats go to parliament as leaders of responsible opposition to enrich debate and strengthen that essential procedure of check and balance.  Should a presidential candidate of a party also fail to win a parliamentary seat then a leading member who won a seat is chosen by their peers to be the leader of the party concerned in parliament. What matters most here is a party leader’s representative voice in parliament and the stature of going through the rites of passage as deserving aspirant to the highest office of state.

All presidential and parliamentary aspirants including seekers of political office from the local to the national level must be acutely conscious of the fact that they do so within the discipline of state power contestation through representative governance.

State power fails to be representative if the exercise of it serves not the purposes of the constitution in respect of equitable service provision and delivery at the local level.  State power must therefore be exercised to ensure equal opportunity to all and equal access to resources by all. There should not be a rich South and impoverished North divide as the continued perpetration of such developmental apartheid falls foul of the national motto of “FREEDOM AND JUSTICE”.

State power must henceforth be the concern and business of all citizens even when citizens through their votes temporarily place an aspect of that responsibility in the hands of their representatives in parliament and in the assemblies. For the state to function effectively much depends on the quality of and moral strength of elected representatives and how well these representatives are able to serve as effective check on the executive. It becomes critical therefore for constituencies to first draw up profiles including personal and professional qualifications for an ideal parliamentarian or assembly person who will serve the national interest and consequently constituency interest. Constituencies then nominate candidates who fit agreed profiles. As it is the choices that we make that define us the choice of a representative must answer clearly the question: “What is it that we are looking for in a representative?”

The national interest is therefore served when the quality of representation makes parliament not a mere rubber stamp of executive wishes. A strong and independent parliament is critical to representative governance. Party loyalty does not mean that MPs must condone executive excesses, incompetence and corrupting acts. Parliamentarians and assembly persons fail in their duty to the nation if they become complicit to executive abuses, especially the use of public office and purse for personal gain and advantage. As soon as elected representatives enter the sacred chambers of parliament or the assembly they do so to serve, protect and advance the national interest above that of the party.  It is parliament and the assembly that present a check on any signs of lapses, poor judgement and corruption on the part of the executive in the exercise of state power. Parliament and the assemblies are constituted to prevent and not to cure acts that tend to prevent effective function of the state. It is rather the judiciary that cures but the teaching here is that prevention is better than cure. Parliament and the assemblies must at all time demonstrate to voters that theirs is a house of zero-tolerance for corruption and abuse of power.  

The state and its agent, the executive, must not be seen as sponsoring corruption and poverty. Institutional corruption and incompetence is a marked failure of the executive and a slap in the face of parliament. It is such failures that infest the effectiveness of the judiciary. Institutions of state that breed corruption and mediocrity must not be tolerated by parliament. It is only when state power and how it is exercised become the concern and business of all citizens that abuse of power would be effectively checked. It is then that a government that uses state power and resources to enrich a privileged few would become an abomination in Ghana.

A government for the few is a corruption and an impoverishment of representative governance. A government for the few is an act of treason and for such to happen is a crass failure on the part of parliament and the assemblies. Here, it becomes the abiding responsibility of the press, the fourth estate, to continuously alert the public and voters of such facts about executive perfidy, moral lapses, poor judgement and general fitness to govern. Eternal vigilance, in the case of Ghana, becomes the price of freedom and justice.

© Akyaaba Addai-Sebo

Independent Consultant on National and Pan-African Interest

25 Azania Mews, London, NW5 3BW, UK

Tel: +447989575666

E-mail: addai@tribute3ml.com

By writing code that doesn't have any. Clearly, if your code has new operations, delete operations, and pointer arithmetic all over the place, you are going to mess up somewhere and get leaks, stray pointers, etc. This is true independently of how conscientious you are with your allocations: eventually the complexity of the code will overcome the time and effort you can afford. It follows that successful techniques rely on hiding allocation and deallocation inside more manageable types. Good examples are the standard containers. They manage memory for their elements better than you could without disproportionate effort. Consider writing this without the help of string and vector:

	#include<vector>
	#include<string>
	#include<iostream>
	#include<algorithm>
	using namespace std;

	int main()	// small program messing around with strings
	{
		cout << "enter some whitespace-separated words:\n";
		vector<string> v;
		string s;
		while (cin>>s) v.push_back(s);

		sort(v.begin(),v.end());

		string cat;
		typedef vector<string>::const_iterator Iter;
		for (Iter p = v.begin(); p!=v.end(); ++p) cat += *p+"+";
		cout << cat << '\n';
	}

What would be your chance of getting it right the first time? And how would you know you didn't have a leak? Note the absence of explicit memory management, macros, casts, overflow checks, explicit size limits, and pointers. By using a function object and a standard algorithm, I could have eliminated the pointer-like use of the iterator, but that seemed overkill for such a tiny program.

These techniques are not perfect and it is not always easy to use them systematically. However, they apply surprisingly widely and by reducing the number of explicit allocations and deallocations you make the remaining examples much easier to keep track of. As early as 1981, I pointed out that by reducing the number of objects that I had to keep track of explicitly from many tens of thousands to a few dozens, I had reduced the intellectual effort needed to get the program right from a Herculean task to something manageable, or even easy.

If your application area doesn't have libraries that make programming that minimizes explicit memory management easy, then the fastest way of getting your program complete and correct might be to first build such a library.

Templates and the standard libraries make this use of containers, resource handles, etc., much easier than it was even a few years ago. The use of exceptions makes it close to essential.

If you cannot handle allocation/deallocation implicitly as part of an object you need in your application anyway, you can use a resource handle to minimize the chance of a leak. Here is an example where I need to return an object allocated on the free store from a function. This is an opportunity to forget to delete that object. After all, we cannot tell just looking at pointer whether it needs to be deallocated and if so who is responsible for that. Using a resource handle, here the standard library auto_ptr, makes it clear where the responsibility lies:

	#include<memory>
	#include<iostream>
	using namespace std;

	struct S {
		S() { cout << "make an S\n"; }
		~S() { cout << "destroy an S\n"; }
		S(const S&) { cout << "copy initialize an S\n"; }
		S& operator=(const S&) { cout << "copy assign an S\n"; }
	};

	S* f()
	{
		return new S;	// who is responsible for deleting this S?
	};

	auto_ptr<S> g()
	{
		return auto_ptr<S>(new S);	// explicitly transfer responsibility for deleting this S
	}

	int main()
	{
		cout << "start main\n";
		S* p = f();
		cout << "after f() before g()\n";
	//	S* q = g();	// this error would be caught by the compiler
		auto_ptr<S> q = g();
		cout << "exit main\n";
		// leaks *p
		// implicitly deletes *q
	}

Think about resources in general, rather than simply about memory.

If systematic application of these techniques is not possible in your environment (you have to use code from elsewhere, part of your program was written by Neanderthals, etc.), be sure to use a memory leak detector as part of your standard development procedure, or plug in a garbage collector.

I always thought rightists wrote better than leftists, but I didn't expect leftists to be writing against themselves. Badly.

The leftist icon Alejandro Lichauco -- whom we read in college because it was either him or Adrian Cristobal -- thinks the Left was bought off by the Makati Business Club during Friday's so-called interfaith rally. Muzzled so that they couldn't even shout their almost instinctive slogan, "Down with US-(your current President here) Imperialism".

The Left? Bought off? Well, if Lichauco says so, who are we -- who are neither Left nor Right (who are neither here nor there, our opponents are wont to say) -- to question him?

So here it is.

* * *

Bad for resign movement and leftists

By Alejandro Lichauco

ANALYSIS

03/03/2008

The Makati Business Club (MBC) claim that it financed the rally is bad for the resign movement — and the “Left”

The worst thing that can happen to the ongoing resign movement is for it to be seen as a creation of special interest groups, particularly those with a large foreign component.

Such a perception will undermine the credibility and independence of a perceived citizens movement out to force the resignation of the nation’s head of state — in this case GMA — on the ground of her corrupt business relations with the agency of a foreign government.

But that’s exactly what happened to the resign movement which staged a protest rally in Makati last Friday. The MBC claimed, through its executive director Albert Lim, that it financed the rally. According to the PDI, Lim acknowledged that the MBC “committed to shoulder between a third and a fifth of the expenses in organizing the rally. The Makati executive director was further quoted to have made the boast that “there will be more (rallies) until she (GMA) steps down.”

The MBC executive then proceeded to name prominent personalities identified with the leadership of the organization he represented as among those who joined the crowd in the rally.

Nothing wrong, of course, in the MBC and its leadership joining in the rally. That’s their right and privilege. But it is something else to claim, as the MBC executive director did, that the MBC itself was among the financiers of the rally and a major financier at that. The bad taste it leaves in the mouth is the impression that the resign movement is the creation of the MBC whose membership is known to include US-based multinational companies who presumably don’t like the idea of the Philippine government having any deals with China. Such must be presumed because it is public knowledge that the US and China are now locked in an economic war the world over, and among the most critical venues of that war is, of course, the Philippines.

Observers have pointedly observed that the factor which appears to be the main trigger of and motive force behind the rally is the controversial ZTE contract and that it was no less than the US ambassador herself who pried open that particular can of worms. The protest rally singled out the host of alleged untruths about the ZTE transaction when in point of fact a great many other untruths about this government — and certainly more serious untruths that the untruth surrounding ZTE — had become issues long before the China deal came along.

In brief, so the impression now goes, Friday’s rally was, in fact, inspired and brought to being by a business group identified with US multinationals and staged in protest against a transaction with China over the US government had previously made known its objection.

That impression might easily be unfair to the protesters — which included the radical Left and elements of the clergy — but one must be forgiven for thinking, in light of MBC’s claim, that the rally was a brainchild of the US government acting through the MBC. And that the funds which came from the MBC might well have come from the US Embassy itself.

This unflattering impression was definitely made even more unflattering for the Left which played a prominent part in the rally. The cry of US imperialism has always been a defining signature of the Left but this time around, as the MBC executive director himself so proudly noted, there wasn’t any such a cry.

In the proud and satisfied words of the MBC executive director, “There is no” — (repeat, no) — shouting slogans against imperialism.”

If Bayan and/or Bayan Muna weren’t in the rally, there wouldn’t have been any significance to the MBC observation. The fact, is, however, that the Bayan/Bayan Muna were there and so one must ask what happened to their defining slogan. Was the Left paid off — to ask the question bluntly — to keep quiet about their favorite villain? The Left bought off — by the MBC — and, by implication, the US Embassy?

That said, we shouldn’t wonder why the military didn’t break away from GMA as everyone had expected. For with the rally seen as a creation of the MBC — and therefore of American business, too, why should the AFP support the marchers’ demand for GMA’s resignation? After all, the AFP doesn’t owe any loyalty to the MBC. And between the MBC — and the foreign elements in it — on one hand and the Commander-in-Chief, on the other hand, no matter how corrupt, there isn’t any question where the AFP’s loyalty lies or should lie.

So, you want to know why the AFP didn’t switch sides as was expected? Answer is: The MBC, of course. Besides, the MBC was among those that mounted Edsa II and gave the nation the illegitimate president that GMA is. And now it wants to mount the Vice President because GMA struck a deal with China.

The message of this piece? The Resign Movement should now repudiate the MBC as it has repudiated GMA. And cry out against US imperialism as well as China’s expansionism. Which the Left will never do.

چند نکته درباره ی استفاده از کانال های IRC

1. از دیگران توقع نداشته باشید که حتما جوابتان را بدهند. در اینجا افراد به طور داوطلبانه به سوالات شما جواب خواهند داد.
2. در کانال های شلوغ پلوغ مثل Ubuntu که هر لحضه بالای هزار نفر آدم توش ریخته. یک سوال خاص را چند باز ننوسید (حتی اگر پیغامتان در میان پیام های دیگران گم شود)
3. کمی صبر کنید تا به یک نفر به شما جواب خواهد دهد.
4. برای اینکه پیام های شما در میان پیام های دیگران گیج کننده نشود ابتدای هر پیام خود نام مخاطب خود را ذکر کنید
5. و از همه مهم تر. قوانین IRC مربوطه را مطالعه فرمایید.

اطلاعات بیشتر: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC

nah, dosen muda SI ini lalu bilang, "N dan n/2 masih kelamaan, jawabnya sqrt(N)" :) persisnya ga ngomong gitu, lebih kocak :D tapi karena pikiran terlanjur memproses sqrt(N) jadi ga inget detail :) jadi ingat kata pak Rully, dan juga mastri (mastery, masih ingatkah kau bilang pake sqrt(N) aja dan jangan kebanyakan make nested conditional waktu di thread programming lautan lama ;) )

nah abis gitu mr dosen nyelotek, coba buktikan. karena awalnya aku rada ga konsen kuliah (berangkat buru2 tuh, datang telat lagi).. so masih skeptis dulu.. baru sampe rumah kepikiran lagi, coba deh liat2 ^_^ dan dan memang terbukti ;)
sekaligus untuk menyegarkan kembali ingatan yang udah lama ngga ngoding dan berhubungan ama algoritma, jadi pengen nulis hasil penalaranku dan bikin codingnya :) he5x kayaknya bakal berguna juga nih buat praktikan alpro 1 (angkatan 2007) saat ini. kali aja keluar (dan biasanya emang keluar ^^)

ke, saatnya mulai. mungkin metodologi pembuktianku lebih agak2 ke arah analogi teoritis di awal kemudian menggunakan pembuktian (aduh apa namanya, di diskrit tuh) tapi ga ku lanjutin pake rumus2nya (membuktikan kasus n berlaku untuk N+1) :) males ja ngitung dan nulis, semua berjalan di RAM (baca : kepala doank) jadi volatile dan ga disimpen :p

as we know, tiap bilangan N memiliki faktor2 yang membentuk pasangan perkalian X dan Y. jumlah X dan Y bisa dikit, bisa banyak banget, tergantung besar nilai N kan :) so, secara umum faktor N adalah X1~Xn dan Y1~Yn. yang mau aku tunjukin disini adalah pola 'unik' pasangan faktor tersebut, lanjutannya mending langsung pake contoh aja, faktor 100 adalah :

1x100
2x50
4x25
5x20
10x10
20x5
25x4
50x2
100x1

ehm... bisa ngeliat pola 'unik' tersebut ???
oke, gimana kalo disusun kayak gini :

1x100 100x1
2x50 50x2
4x25 25x4
5x20 20x5
10x10

kalo kalian berpikir "X kayak cermin-nya Y", bener ^_^ kalo nilai2 tersebut diletakkan pada koordinat cartesius (benernya aku mau bikinin grafik cartesiusnya, cuman ga sempat) bakal terlihat bahwa kurva yang dihasilkan simetris (jika dipotong dnegan garis x=y) dengan nilai extrem pada 10x10 (dengan kata lain X=Y).
nah apa hubungannya dengan pendapat diatas mengenai efisiensi penggunaan sqrt(N) sebagai limit perhitungan penentuan bilangan prima ? X*Y=N, (X=Y)=> X2=N => X=sqrt(N) ;)

yah, itu contohnya kan angka 100, angka yang bulat, gampang keliatan, apa teori diatas juag berlaku untuk yang ngga bulat (kotak mungkin ^^)
sepp, pertanyaan bagus, cek mau angka berapa, kita ambil 39 aja gimana :)
faktornya :

1x39 39x1
3x13 13x1

nah loh, ga ada X=Y -nya yah???

^_^ memang keliatannya seperti itu disini, tapi kalo di grafik cartesius bakal ada ko', tepatnya di nilai 6,244997998.... panjang deh :D tapi, kalo kita bicara mengenai bilangan prima, kita bicara di domain bilangan asli, bilangan yang dimulai dari 1 ~ tak hingga dan BULAT, atau tanpa pecahan. dalam bilangan asli dapat dipastikan floor rounding atau dibulatkan kebawah, sehingga sehingga dapat diasumsikan dengan aman bahwa limit sqrt(N) yang dipakai adalah 6. tidak perlu dilakukan pengecekan modulo dengan pembagi lebih dari 6 (bandingkan dengan mengecek semua 39 pembagi)

so ngapain nyari lagi modulo dengan x (pembagi perhitungan) > sqrt(N), karena perkalian dengan nilai diatas itu PASTI merupakan 'cermin' dari perkalian faktor sebelumnya yang telah dihitung, lebih baik menghemat waktu kan ^_^ 100 sih masih enak, coba kalo ngitung apakah 100000000 itu prima, kan menghabiskan waktu.
oke, 100000000 emang bukan prima, udah dilihat juga tau ^_^ tapi coba cek 98165512531247, tes prima pa bukan :D

nah cukup segitu aja pembuktiannya ala tyo yang ngga jelas tersebut ^_^

coba rubah aja code limit menjadi N atau (N/2) kalo mau ngetes, bandingkan hasil bilangan yang ditampilkan ;) pengecekan silahkan sampe berapa suku bilangan prima deh, 1 juta juga gpp, makin banyak makin menegaskan kalo yang ditampilkan sama berarti bener kan :) dan perbedaan kecepatan bakal kerasa, yang lebih cepat tentu dengan menggunakan sqrt(N) ;)

NB : kalo ada yang keliru atau salah mohon kritik dan sarannya ;)

App jadinya :