Through this book, we'll help you understand the architecture of applications and will teach you the important concepts of the FireMonkey library, show you how to build server-side services, and enable you to interact with the Internet of Things. Towards the end, you will learn to integrate your app with various web services and deploy them.
The book introduces the reader to computer programming, i.e. algorithms and data structures. It covers many new programming concepts that have emerged in recent years including object-oriented programming and design patterns.
Expert Delphi book pdf
Download File: https://shoxet.com/2vFnIp
This book is written for programmers who want to learn the Object Pascal Language. It is also suitable as a first programming book for new students and non-programmers. It illustrates programming techniques in general in addition to the Object Pascal Language.
The book provides numerous practical examples with necessary connection schematics explaining the operation of temperature sensors, A/D and D/A converters, LCD and LED displays, relays, communication modules etc.
This book is an introduction to the basic features of the Pascal language, as found in Delphi and other modern development tools, from the best selling author of Mastering Delphi. It includes control structures, ordinal data types, input/output operations, and procedures and functions.
This book provides detailed coverage of the Delphi Language, from an OOP perspective. It offers in-depth instruction in Win32 and .NET development using the new IDE. Learn how much you can accomplish with the combined Borland and .NET libraries.
This book covers a variety of powerful Delphi programming features and techniques including Generics, Interfaces, Exception, Handling, Anonymous Methods, Collections, RTTI, Enumerators, Attributes, Dependency Injection and Unit Testing
This book features clear, concise coverage of essential programming concepts. This text is designed for courses related to Introduction to Computer Science, Introduction to Programming, Introduction to Pascal, and Computer Science.
The book begins with a basic primer on Delphi helping you get accustomed to the IDE and the Object Pascal language and will then quickly move on to advanced-level concepts. Through this book, we'll help you understand the architecture of applications and will teach you the important concepts of the FireMonkey library, show you how to build server-side services, and enable you to interact with the Internet of Things. Towards the end, you will learn to integrate your app with various web services and deploy them.
The point here is that almost any topic is appropriate. I have done Delphi studies on education and cyber security (Davidson, 2014). Healthcare is probably the most common area of application for Delphi studies, and this may be because 1) it is easier to qualify "experts" to use as participants, and 2) the field of healthcare is so complex that it offers many crossovers into other areas such as education (e.g. nursing education), infection control, and hospital administration itself. However, there are no limits. Strategic planning is also an area that uses the Delphi process in trying to be better prepared for future events. For example, Roßmann et al. (2017) studied how big data will affect supply chain management in the future. This is critically important for all businesses. In an older paper, Loo (2002) discussed the use of the Delphi technical are a tool "to help forecast the future for the purposes of strategic management" (p. 762).
This may be the most important and most difficult aspect of the Delphi Technique. Selecting and qualifying participants as legitimate experts takes a lot of time but is essential in validating the study. There are no specific criteria established for selecting Delphi participants, but in my own study for an article I am writing on this topic, the primary consensus is that an expert has the appropriate education background and work experience and is regarded by peers as an expert or someone to whom they seek out for advice. I look for people who are published or who present at professional meetings.
The sample is Delphi and NGT typically starts with a question or a questionnaire addressed to the panel of experts. That questionnaire provides a set of beginning data, and the researcher then combines and synthesizes the data from the panel. The research can also add new information from a literature review to add to the information garnered from the panelists.
Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.
Multisectoral collaboration that centres on communities and fosters trust is needed. Ending COVID-19 as a public health threat requires whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches engaging trusted community leaders and organizations, scientific experts, businesses, and other disciplines and sectors1,125. This expanded pool of collaborators can best address diverse needs regarding modes of access, communication, innovation and trust among different populations126,127.
The pandemic has illustrated the risk of over-reliance on experts from a small number of disciplines (Table 3 (STMT6.8)), often excluding the expertise of community members (Table 4 (REC1.2)) and vulnerable groups (Table 3 (STMT6.7)). Instead, vulnerable groups should be sought out and actively engaged (Table 7 (REC6.3)). As noted in the communication domain, community leaders should also be engaged (Table 4 (REC1.1)). Multidisciplinary experts who understand local contexts should be included in developing national operational plans for ending COVID-19 as a public health threat (Table 7 (REC6.1)). COVID-19 tests and treatments should be affordable for all people in all countries (Table 7 (REC6.2)).
One of the strengths of this study is its use of Delphi methodology. By demonstrating increased agreement with each subsequent round, this method enabled us to determine whether our incorporation of feedback was successful in refining the statements and recommendations, increasing the degree of consensus and, in some cases, reaching unanimity. The consistently increasing mean levels of agreement with the consensus statements and recommendations observed across all three survey rounds strengthens our confidence in the relevance of the iterative Delphi process in eliciting feedback to improve subsequent rounds. This is particularly noteworthy given that the effort to incorporate feedback from the expert panel may have resulted in more complex (for example, multiple item) statements and recommendations. Generally, there may be concerns as to the clarity of such statements; however, levels of agreement tended to be either maintained or increased, providing greater confidence in their resonance with the panel. The overall high response rates across three survey rounds speaks to both the rigorous implementation of the method and the commitment of the assembled panel of experts. Endorsement of the resultant consensus statements and recommendations by 184 organizations in 72 countries (Supplementary Table 2) at the time of publication further testifies to their global relevance.
We used an iterative sampling approach to generate a large panel for this Delphi study (Fig. 1). The four co-chairs (J.V.L., A.B., A.K. and A.E.-M.) identified a core group of 40 academic, health, NGO, government and policy experts from 25 countries and territories. Selection by the co-chairs was primarily based on publication record and engagement on COVID-19 issues as well as online biographies. Twenty-nine of these experts were well known to the chairs while seven were suggested through snowball sampling to result in geographical and gender equity among the core group of 40. Furthermore, a concerted effort was made towards multidisciplinary representation in the core group, including medical sciences (such as infectious diseases, public health and vaccinology), engineering, and social sciences (such as policy, law and ethics). The core group proposed additional experts to create a global panel of approximately 400 experts. The lead chair (J.V.L.) and methodologist (D.R.) led this core group through implementation of the project. Snowball sampling was then used as core group members identified individuals with expertise in COVID-19 from their professional networks to generate an initial list of potential Delphi panel members with the goal of broad representation. In proposing experts, co-chairs focused on identifying at least one representative from at least 100 countries. One co-chair (J.V.L.) took responsibility for reviewing the suggestions, with support from a research assistant who shared recent publications and a professional biography for every proposed co-author. Many initial suggestions were of leading experts with whom the co-chairs had previously collaborated. 2ff7e9595c
Comments