Microsoft doesn't charge for use of the MSDN library. The library is as easy to use as any help file on the subject (and includes more information than JUST programming interface documentation).
The bit about XP is ridiculous considering that it's a switch to a whole new kernel. Things work considerably differently under the NT kernel. If you only read about Luna and high color icons, you probably weren't reading anything intended for actual Windows developers.
I expended considerable mental energy on the chapter on memory management -- which left me fairly angry when I read the very last paragraph. This explained that the preceding text (unchanged from the previous edition) was only useful if you planned to write real-mode or protected-mode programs. No sane programmer does these things -- that's why 3.0 was the first version anybody took seriously.
Maybe you don't understand your architecture to enough depth to see the real problem.
First of all, x86 developers either write real mode or protected mode programs. To claim that "no sane programmer" writes for either mode is to claim that there are no sane programmers!:)
You probably had a problem with the 24-bit segment:offset memory addressing model of x86 real mode. That's a hack to get more memory than can be addressed by the 16-bit machine integers of the time. There's a similar hack to address higher than 2^32 bytes of memory in modern x86 systems.
The other possibility is that you were confused by protected mode's memory page access controls. Since this is a much simpler thing to work with than segment:offset addressing, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not go into it.
COM is required in very few places in windows programming. In half the places where it is required, direct X mostly, it's wrapped in such a way that you don't need to learn anything about it.
I think that it gets more use in OLE actually. The things that make the most common use of the COM are things like OLE controls (ActiveX controls), OLE document objects (linking/embedding excel docs in word docs, etc), and scriptable objects (objects that expose IDispatch... especially automation interfaces for the Office applications).
DirectX, by comparison, sees less use (except in games or some popular media applications).
I was trying to point out the difference between meaningless units and impossible values. There's nothing wrong with saying that the speed of something is proportional to the value c^2 (although that's an impossible speed). You're right that it's improper to say that a speed is c^2. I thought that you were making a different point originally, thanks for clearing that up.
Actually I didn't mean ass.remove(ass.getStick());
Because the getStick member function is an access mediator, it makes no sense to allow an attempt at access if that resource is invalid. Passing the address of the getStick member function to the "remove" member function allows the ass object to place its address into a table of excluded functions. The original function header is retained in this table and the code after stack-related instructions is modified to raise an exception when an attempt is made to access the specified function. That way, the ass can remove any access methods in an abstract way.
Have you got some kind of support for that, or should I trust your word?
Pakistan had an interest in installing the Taliban. The validity of the Durand line was set to expire and they knew that there'd be calls in Afghanistan to bring Pashtoonestan back into the country (taking out ~50% of Pakistan). As a bunch of Pakistan-trained Pashtoonestan orphans, the Taliban wouldn't be interested in attacking Pakistan to bring Pashtoonestan back into Afghanistan.
So that's the Pakistani interest, what's the US interest?
I don't know, I'm still a student and I don't understand why people think that "3d games" are inherently difficult to program. I made a basic 3D rasterizer in a weekend with cheapo T&L (or straight wireframe rendering). It's not a big step to move it around and whatnot. That's all in software too... no libraries used at all (except for DirectDraw to output pixels to the screen).
The US sponsored the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, not the Taliban. Although it's true that the Taliban came out of the mujahedeen, they were only one small group and, if anything, the massive growth of the Taliban was the result of the catalysis of Pakistan.
I seriously doubt that the people who hijacked the planes that hit the WTC towers were wearing "towels" on their heads. That's the most ridiculous measure of loyalty to the United States that's ever been interpreted.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft doesn't charge for use of the MSDN library. The library is as easy to use as any help file on the subject (and includes more information than JUST programming interface documentation).
The bit about XP is ridiculous considering that it's a switch to a whole new kernel. Things work considerably differently under the NT kernel. If you only read about Luna and high color icons, you probably weren't reading anything intended for actual Windows developers.
I expended considerable mental energy on the chapter on memory management -- which left me fairly angry when I read the very last paragraph. This explained that the preceding text (unchanged from the previous edition) was only useful if you planned to write real-mode or protected-mode programs. No sane programmer does these things -- that's why 3.0 was the first version anybody took seriously.
:)
Maybe you don't understand your architecture to enough depth to see the real problem.
First of all, x86 developers either write real mode or protected mode programs. To claim that "no sane programmer" writes for either mode is to claim that there are no sane programmers!
You probably had a problem with the 24-bit segment:offset memory addressing model of x86 real mode. That's a hack to get more memory than can be addressed by the 16-bit machine integers of the time. There's a similar hack to address higher than 2^32 bytes of memory in modern x86 systems.
The other possibility is that you were confused by protected mode's memory page access controls. Since this is a much simpler thing to work with than segment:offset addressing, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not go into it.
COM is required in very few places in windows programming. In half the places where it is required, direct X mostly, it's wrapped in such a way that you don't need to learn anything about it.
... especially automation interfaces for the Office applications).
I think that it gets more use in OLE actually. The things that make the most common use of the COM are things like OLE controls (ActiveX controls), OLE document objects (linking/embedding excel docs in word docs, etc), and scriptable objects (objects that expose IDispatch
DirectX, by comparison, sees less use (except in games or some popular media applications).
Except that we know who Jeff Bates and Rob Malda are.
Or a 5, Funny?
How is this an answer to the guy's question? If anything, it's a fallacious appeal to emotion/age (the same kind that he seems wary of).
It may or may not be true that the questioner is inexperienced, but what you say here does not answer that.
Note that I'm *not* an Anonymous Coward, so feel free to reply to that. I'm willing to put my name behind my views.
Your mother named you "CoreDump?"
Unfortunately that won't work because the storage cells would be finite. That's the whole purpose of the tape to begin with.
University of Ignorance and Retardation ... that's clever.
BTW, I do like functional languages.
Yes and we also hear, "there are no habitable planets or life-sustaining resources within our reach, except for our own Earth."
He asked what "preemption" meant in the context of a "fully preemptable kernel."
He didn't even answer the guy's question.
And anyway, threading never caused a BSOD in Win9x. He's on crack.
I was trying to point out the difference between meaningless units and impossible values. There's nothing wrong with saying that the speed of something is proportional to the value c^2 (although that's an impossible speed). You're right that it's improper to say that a speed is c^2. I thought that you were making a different point originally, thanks for clearing that up.
c is defined as ~2.99792*10^8 meters per second
Actually I didn't mean ass.remove(ass.getStick());
Because the getStick member function is an access mediator, it makes no sense to allow an attempt at access if that resource is invalid. Passing the address of the getStick member function to the "remove" member function allows the ass object to place its address into a table of excluded functions. The original function header is retained in this table and the code after stack-related instructions is modified to raise an exception when an attempt is made to access the specified function. That way, the ass can remove any access methods in an abstract way.
It's a very versatile ass.
Shouldn't that be:
// ?
ass.remove(ass.getStick);
What are you removing from the stick?
Thanks, it took me a while but I did eventually get through and I read it.
I hadn't read anything THAT recent about bin Laden being in bed with the Taliban. I think that I should probably look into that issue a bit more.
Again, thanks for the link.
Have you got some kind of support for that, or should I trust your word?
Pakistan had an interest in installing the Taliban. The validity of the Durand line was set to expire and they knew that there'd be calls in Afghanistan to bring Pashtoonestan back into the country (taking out ~50% of Pakistan). As a bunch of Pakistan-trained Pashtoonestan orphans, the Taliban wouldn't be interested in attacking Pakistan to bring Pashtoonestan back into Afghanistan.
So that's the Pakistani interest, what's the US interest?
Yes but those of us who don't live in Candyland have to reference the laws of physics and not Star Trek.
Maybe.. Maybe not.. Are you sure you want to be left off the guest list when it happens because you had a lousy attitude?
... I think that if it can be done at all I'd be indescribably happy.
Honestly I could care less who does it or who gets to travel first
I don't know, I'm still a student and I don't understand why people think that "3d games" are inherently difficult to program. I made a basic 3D rasterizer in a weekend with cheapo T&L (or straight wireframe rendering). It's not a big step to move it around and whatnot. That's all in software too ... no libraries used at all (except for DirectDraw to output pixels to the screen).
The US sponsored the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, not the Taliban. Although it's true that the Taliban came out of the mujahedeen, they were only one small group and, if anything, the massive growth of the Taliban was the result of the catalysis of Pakistan.
The Chinese claim that they've got to stamp out terrorists in Tibet. :cough:
So does that make 1/4 tongue in cheek for you?
And yes I will stick my neck out and say that the Slashdot readership will not develop the technology of the warp drive in the next ten years.
Do you really think that anyone will develop "the technology" for >c travel in the next ten years (let alone the next century)?
I seriously doubt that the people who hijacked the planes that hit the WTC towers were wearing "towels" on their heads. That's the most ridiculous measure of loyalty to the United States that's ever been interpreted.