Jump to content

Lajos Juhász

Members
  • Content Count

    828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Lajos Juhász


  1. 1 hour ago, Vandrovnik said:

    Shall I translate it for myself as "Give us your money for new versions (you can pay for 1, 2 or even 3 years), but we will not tell you what you get for your money."?

     

    Yes of course. Also that they find no interest in publishing when we can expect a point release (including bug fixes). You bought what you bought (without support you get 0 bugfix) if there is a bug you're a developer and should write your code that will overcome the bugs.

    This is not acceptable for Windows but it's working as updates/new version from MS doesn't requires changes in the toolchain. On the other side mobile platforms with every new version require an update in the toolchain they cannot support new OS releases.

     

    If you're using Delphi for an application you just have to figure out your developing cycle without knowing when you can expect bug fixes or new version with updates that you could use.


  2. 1 hour ago, Brandon Staggs said:

     

    Can someone explain the rationale for putting beta versions of Delphi behind a "premium" subscription, instead of just opening it up to any subscribers who are willing to beta test Delphi?

     

    Why not? It's a priviledge to get access to some kind of "road map information". Their task is also to help to complete the version. This it's premium service of the customers towards the company!

    • Like 1
    • Haha 3

  3. 10 minutes ago, Sherlock said:

    Given the complexity and the tendency of developers to always suggest some totally different approach :classic_biggrin:, here is my completely different suggestion. You seem to have the need to validate an e-mail address before storing it. How about sending a test mail before doing that. That way you get to birds with one stone: Verify the address, and get the permission to use it... a must have in Europe.

    This is an excellent suggestion. I doubt it is a must in Europe, I still receive sensitive information for other people in my e-mail account. 


  4. 4 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

    Even if you don't have a need to write assembler, knowledge of it makes you a better developer because it gives you a deeper understanding of what's going on and why. The same goes for hardware.

    I wrote that in context that Asm has more than twice the rating of Delphi.  I simply cannot believe that's true. 


  5. 16 hours ago, David Heffernan said:

    Stefan is talking about a different algorithm, modified binary search algorithms know as lower or upper bound binary search. Kind of the entire point of this topic.

    My point was with that Wikipedia link that modified algorithms have their names. Like in the link the variation to find the elemest with lowest index is called binary_search_leftmost and not binary_search.

     

    16 hours ago, Anders Melander said:

    Wikipedia (even though it references the almighty Knuth) isn't the definition". It's a definition.

    That's true, but most developers expect that if an implementation reference to an algorithm it will implement that algorithm and not something else. That was the whole point to name algorithms in matemathics and computer science. That no matter from where you learned an algorithm you know how it works.

    • Like 1

  6. 3 hours ago, Stefan Glienke said:

    Not true - in a lower bound binary search you keep on binary searching until your range got down to 1 element - with a loop you turn O(log n) into O(n)

    This is the definition of the binary search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search_algorithm

     

    "The procedure may return any index whose element is equal to the target value, even if there are duplicate elements in the array. For example, if the array to be searched was {\displaystyle [1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7]}{\displaystyle [1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7]} and the target was {\displaystyle 4}4, then it would be correct for the algorithm to either return the 4th (index 3) or 5th (index 4) element. The regular procedure would return the 4th element (index 3) in this case. It does not always return the first duplicate (consider {\displaystyle [1,2,4,4,4,5,6,7]}{\displaystyle [1,2,4,4,4,5,6,7]} which still returns the 4th element). "

     

×