Nolan's Corner - C++

I Have C++ Class

sneakin — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:12:11 -0800

I thought I'd share the results of the C++ test I took over at BrainBench since they're doing a couple weeks of free tests. With some stupid mistakes I did pretty good:

C++
Score:	3.66
Percentile:	Scored higher than 79% of previous examinees
Demonstrates a clear understanding of many advanced concepts within this topic. Appears capable of mentoring others on most projects in this area.
Strong Areas	Basic Structure and Syntax Class Member Functions C++ Class
Weak Areas	Templates

I really like the part "Appears capable of mentoring others on most projects in this area." And I guess my skills need a Boost to improve my weak area. They have another C++ test which I need to take. Wish me luck.

Letter to Trolltech Concerning Qt4's Price Increase

sneakin — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:00:41 -0700

This is the body of an email I sent to Trolltech about their price increase on Qt4. Enjoy!

Hello,

I just checked the prices for Qt4 and my mouth dropped open. I was shocked by the price increase which is nearly doubled from Qt3. I have a contract lined up and was considering purchasing a license to Qt after I had enough money saved up, but this price increase is making me reconsider.

With the release of Qt under the GPL for Windows I am seriously considering making an attempt at making any future Qt apps open-source and finding another means to generate revenue other than selling the software. All that due to the price increase.

The combination of the GPL Windows release and the increase in prices makes buying Qt much less attractive. I would definitely bought a license if the prices stayed the same or even decreased. I'm sure a number of other potential licensees are thinking the same thing.

This price increase will not recoup any losses caused by GPLing Qt for Windows. Most likely it'll do just the opposite by causing people to work with the GPL. I would have decreased the price if I was in charge of setting the price.

Regards,
Nolan Eakins

Integers

sneakin — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:42:32 -0700

It's been a minute since I've blogged, and I have something I want to rant about because I just don't get it. This is probably the result of design by commitee, but why the hell is C/C++'s int type four bytes on 64 bit machines, while long is eight? To me it makes more sense for the long type to be four bytes and let int get bumped up to eight.

C/C++'s integer types come in a spectrum in increasing size:

char
short
long
long long

And don't forget int.

That's all of the integer types, minus unsigned, that C/C++ has. Looking at that list it would make sense to make their sizes be consistent on all platforms so char is one byte, short two, long four, long long at eight, and have int roam around a bit.

Is this what we get on today's 64 bit platforms? No! int gets stuck at four bytes, and long gets bumped up to eight! Who the hell was to busy smoking the crack at the commitee meetings and didn't notice long long was already at eight?

I know, I know. It was a long spec, and the crack ran out. But it makes more sense to me anyway to let int roam about in its byte size leaving the oddly named integers like short and long stuck in their place.