In C++, you'd use placement new for something like that. Allocate memory for however many credit card records you like, and new and delete from there. The syntax is simple, and you can encapsulate it in a function easily if you want. Alternately, you can use static allocation like you'd do in COBOL, although it seems to me a little clumsier.
If you want to allocate memory at the start of the program in C++, go for it. Most people don't do it because there's better ways for most purposes. You want to have constant string buffer sizes, type "int const string_buffer_size = " ending with whatever you want, and use that to size all string buffers. (You're generally better off using std::string, of course.) And, of course, if you want contiguous block memory structures, use std::vector or something similar. If you allocate all of it in advance, it's going to work just the same as COBOL, only better.
From my point of view, COBOL is well suited for extremely boring business applications.
There's no reason these applications couldn't be written in something more modern, and if they were being written now they would be. We're talking about very simple applications (because no sane person would do anything else in COBOL except for hack value), and they're easy to get right in any language.
However, there are an appalling number of lines of COBOL out there in general use, and there's no business reason to rewrite all of it, and so COBOL programmers will remain in demand for the foreseeable future.
Pay it off in full each month and you won't pay interest. If you have no annual fee (and I have no problem getting such a card), you're paying nothing besides what you charge. In exchange for that, I get discounts and about a 1.5 month float if I need it (which I don't), and some additional protection.
I can't be rendered incapable of paying my card without something drastic, since I've got savings and liquid assets far in excess of my credit limits, and if I have to declare bankruptcy I won't have credit card debt anyway.
Some people have problems in that they don't feel like paying with a card is still paying, and they need to limit their card use. Similarly, if someone has trouble with budgeting, they may benefit from the discipline forced by spending only what they have at the moment. They should never carry their cards.
Forcibly removing a passenger isn't the same as beating a passenger up in the process of forcible removal. There might well have been excessive violence.
A doctor going to perform surgery on a patient may have very good reasons for wanting to stay on the flight he's on. Protesting after leaving the plane means leaving the plane and being delayed.
I'd say Apple's undervaluation is because it's not clear that Apple can continue the success it had with Jobs. Apple made billions and billions coming up with neat stuff that transformed the market, and it doesn't look like it's going to do that again.
Tesla needs to have a path to profitability, which will work as well as profits. Right now, Tesla could be running a profit, but instead it's reinvesting what would be profits. So, either Tesla builds up and becomes more valuable, or it runs a decent profit, and either works.
Houses are long-lived and therefore frequently obsolescent in parts. Mine was built in 1892. The bathrooms were added later, extending the existing foundation. It was presumably built with gas light (it's still got lots of the pipes), so the electricity was added later, back when the only use you'd have for it in a living area was to power a few lamps. Now, a few people are buying electric cars that need chargers backed up by more wattage, and it will be a while before garages are normally built with that amount of power coming in. Once that becomes common, the chargers will doubtless change in some way, and the wiring will no longer be optimum..
Corporate copyrights are not eternal. They're something like 95 years after publication or 120 after creation. Those are still, technically, limited times.
Violating emissions standards is harm. We also have laws restricting what level of danger people can put others into. We do that because damage is not necessarily fixable. If you drive drunk, you might kill someone, and that's not fixable. You might do property damage beyond your ability to pay. You're not allowed to drive with impaired brakes, for much the same reasons. You're not allowed to make things dangerous to work on without proper warnings, whether or not a computer is involved.
It's not like there's any lack of impeachable offenses right now. Businesses Trump has interests in have been accepting money from governments, which is unconstitutional.
Criminal allegations? I can make criminal allegations about you, and then you'll not be free of criminal allegations either.
Exactly what evidence is there that the government was spying on the Trump campaign? As far as I can tell, that's not even being claimed by Trump's staff.
Software liability is not a legal problem. Liability in general is, and it isn't any different because it's in the cloud/on a computer/electronic. If someone does something that hurts others sufficiently to cause legal liability, it doesn't matter how they did it. Typically, if they're using software, the software terms will disclaim all liability, or all liability over the purchase price of the software. If companies refused to accept such terms, software companies would be forced to assume liability in order to make sales.
Under what charge would you and your friends go to jail?
Socialism is the direct or indirect ownership or control of the means of production by the workers. You and your three buddies would be establishing a socialist enterprise.
And you probably don't have enough money to afford the lawyers to drag out court proceedings until you establish the business well enough to afford the lawyers.
More specifically, how is it going to help your customers do what they do or want to do? You need to know who will want it and why. Have a specific customer base in mind, whose lives or profits you can improve for specific reasons. Those reasons are the selling features
Why hasn't anyone else done it?
This is one of those things where being able to answer the question is good regardless of the answer. It may be that it looks like a really dumb idea (like trying to make a profit on better Internet search when Altavista, Lycos, and Yahoo were doing so well at it). It may be that you have some specific novel thing that will provide tangible benefits to people.
It's state by state in the US. Such contracts are illegal in California and Minnesota, and I think legal in Texas. If someone wants to do anything creative outside their job and possibly get paid for it, they should find out about the law and possibly examine whatever written agreements they have with their employer. (In the US, the local Bar Association will typically arrange a short consultation for not too much money, and there may be a state government department charged with helping entrepeneurs that may have something on this.)
It's often possible to negotiate terms giving you the ability to do your own projects on your own time, even if you're already employed.
If you're creating something that shouldn't be the property of your employer, make sure to keep a strict separation. Don't do any of the work on company premises, using company equipment or services, and during times when you're actually working for the company. You don't want to give them any excuse to snarf it.
And, really, the invasion of Kuwait affected us only because we made it our business. What it means is that, if we're going to intervene somewhere, we should be clear about it and not give other governments the wrong idea. Lots of places get worse and worse, and China makes it really awkward to try to influence North Korea..
To repeat myself, other than Hitler, when have we ignored a genocidal dictator and really paid for it later. (Hitler was also arguably not genocidal until 1942, by which time we were at war with Germany.)
So there are only two courses of action, Trump's and the wrong one? There's lots of things that could have been done that aren't either an apparently ineffectual Tomahawk strike on an airfield and doing nothing.
I've been told that, during Prohibition, some folks sold sets of pipes and other apparatus. The sets came with warnings: Do not do these things (described in detail), for then you would have created an alcoholic beverage and broken the law.
Snopes provides sources. Read the articles. If you're not convinced, track down the sources. It really doesn't matter if they're biased as long as they provide verifiable information to back up what they say.
The Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed with increasing degrees of precision, to give an example. Relativity explains the outcome to within all experimental error in that experiment (and, in my firm opinion, will continue to do so). People keep coming up with new ways to test general relativity, and, as far as I can tell from a distance, usually wind up confirming that "Yes, it works that way." We build a gravitational-wave detector that's much more sensitive than any preceding one, and we get observations that are in agreement with what we thought would happen, depending on events.
I see your point, but physicists aren't generally trying to disprove relativity or quantum mechanics. They're testing consequences as they can get the observations or experiments. It's possible that something would come up that would invalidate a previous theory (the 19th Century wave theory of light was superseded by a combination of specific observations, such as black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect), but I don't know that many physicists were trying to disprove it so much as fill in the details (which didn't fit in a big way).
Slashdot Mirror
And some people think C++ is hard to work with. Heh heh.
In C++, you'd use placement new for something like that. Allocate memory for however many credit card records you like, and new and delete from there. The syntax is simple, and you can encapsulate it in a function easily if you want. Alternately, you can use static allocation like you'd do in COBOL, although it seems to me a little clumsier.
If you want to allocate memory at the start of the program in C++, go for it. Most people don't do it because there's better ways for most purposes. You want to have constant string buffer sizes, type "int const string_buffer_size = " ending with whatever you want, and use that to size all string buffers. (You're generally better off using std::string, of course.) And, of course, if you want contiguous block memory structures, use std::vector or something similar. If you allocate all of it in advance, it's going to work just the same as COBOL, only better.
From my point of view, COBOL is well suited for extremely boring business applications.
There's no reason these applications couldn't be written in something more modern, and if they were being written now they would be. We're talking about very simple applications (because no sane person would do anything else in COBOL except for hack value), and they're easy to get right in any language.
However, there are an appalling number of lines of COBOL out there in general use, and there's no business reason to rewrite all of it, and so COBOL programmers will remain in demand for the foreseeable future.
Pay it off in full each month and you won't pay interest. If you have no annual fee (and I have no problem getting such a card), you're paying nothing besides what you charge. In exchange for that, I get discounts and about a 1.5 month float if I need it (which I don't), and some additional protection.
I can't be rendered incapable of paying my card without something drastic, since I've got savings and liquid assets far in excess of my credit limits, and if I have to declare bankruptcy I won't have credit card debt anyway.
Some people have problems in that they don't feel like paying with a card is still paying, and they need to limit their card use. Similarly, if someone has trouble with budgeting, they may benefit from the discipline forced by spending only what they have at the moment. They should never carry their cards.
Forcibly removing a passenger isn't the same as beating a passenger up in the process of forcible removal. There might well have been excessive violence.
A doctor going to perform surgery on a patient may have very good reasons for wanting to stay on the flight he's on. Protesting after leaving the plane means leaving the plane and being delayed.
I'd say Apple's undervaluation is because it's not clear that Apple can continue the success it had with Jobs. Apple made billions and billions coming up with neat stuff that transformed the market, and it doesn't look like it's going to do that again.
Tesla needs to have a path to profitability, which will work as well as profits. Right now, Tesla could be running a profit, but instead it's reinvesting what would be profits. So, either Tesla builds up and becomes more valuable, or it runs a decent profit, and either works.
Houses are long-lived and therefore frequently obsolescent in parts. Mine was built in 1892. The bathrooms were added later, extending the existing foundation. It was presumably built with gas light (it's still got lots of the pipes), so the electricity was added later, back when the only use you'd have for it in a living area was to power a few lamps. Now, a few people are buying electric cars that need chargers backed up by more wattage, and it will be a while before garages are normally built with that amount of power coming in. Once that becomes common, the chargers will doubtless change in some way, and the wiring will no longer be optimum..
Corporate copyrights are not eternal. They're something like 95 years after publication or 120 after creation. Those are still, technically, limited times.
Violating emissions standards is harm. We also have laws restricting what level of danger people can put others into. We do that because damage is not necessarily fixable. If you drive drunk, you might kill someone, and that's not fixable. You might do property damage beyond your ability to pay. You're not allowed to drive with impaired brakes, for much the same reasons. You're not allowed to make things dangerous to work on without proper warnings, whether or not a computer is involved.
It's not like there's any lack of impeachable offenses right now. Businesses Trump has interests in have been accepting money from governments, which is unconstitutional.
Criminal allegations? I can make criminal allegations about you, and then you'll not be free of criminal allegations either.
Exactly what evidence is there that the government was spying on the Trump campaign? As far as I can tell, that's not even being claimed by Trump's staff.
Software liability is not a legal problem. Liability in general is, and it isn't any different because it's in the cloud/on a computer/electronic. If someone does something that hurts others sufficiently to cause legal liability, it doesn't matter how they did it. Typically, if they're using software, the software terms will disclaim all liability, or all liability over the purchase price of the software. If companies refused to accept such terms, software companies would be forced to assume liability in order to make sales.
Under what charge would you and your friends go to jail?
Socialism is the direct or indirect ownership or control of the means of production by the workers. You and your three buddies would be establishing a socialist enterprise.
And you probably don't have enough money to afford the lawyers to drag out court proceedings until you establish the business well enough to afford the lawyers.
More specifically, how is it going to help your customers do what they do or want to do? You need to know who will want it and why. Have a specific customer base in mind, whose lives or profits you can improve for specific reasons. Those reasons are the selling features
This is one of those things where being able to answer the question is good regardless of the answer. It may be that it looks like a really dumb idea (like trying to make a profit on better Internet search when Altavista, Lycos, and Yahoo were doing so well at it). It may be that you have some specific novel thing that will provide tangible benefits to people.
It's state by state in the US. Such contracts are illegal in California and Minnesota, and I think legal in Texas. If someone wants to do anything creative outside their job and possibly get paid for it, they should find out about the law and possibly examine whatever written agreements they have with their employer. (In the US, the local Bar Association will typically arrange a short consultation for not too much money, and there may be a state government department charged with helping entrepeneurs that may have something on this.)
It's often possible to negotiate terms giving you the ability to do your own projects on your own time, even if you're already employed.
If you're creating something that shouldn't be the property of your employer, make sure to keep a strict separation. Don't do any of the work on company premises, using company equipment or services, and during times when you're actually working for the company. You don't want to give them any excuse to snarf it.
And, really, the invasion of Kuwait affected us only because we made it our business. What it means is that, if we're going to intervene somewhere, we should be clear about it and not give other governments the wrong idea. Lots of places get worse and worse, and China makes it really awkward to try to influence North Korea..
To repeat myself, other than Hitler, when have we ignored a genocidal dictator and really paid for it later. (Hitler was also arguably not genocidal until 1942, by which time we were at war with Germany.)
So there are only two courses of action, Trump's and the wrong one? There's lots of things that could have been done that aren't either an apparently ineffectual Tomahawk strike on an airfield and doing nothing.
And this would distinguish Java from most computer languages - how?
I've been told that, during Prohibition, some folks sold sets of pipes and other apparatus. The sets came with warnings: Do not do these things (described in detail), for then you would have created an alcoholic beverage and broken the law.
Snopes provides sources. Read the articles. If you're not convinced, track down the sources. It really doesn't matter if they're biased as long as they provide verifiable information to back up what they say.
The Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed with increasing degrees of precision, to give an example. Relativity explains the outcome to within all experimental error in that experiment (and, in my firm opinion, will continue to do so). People keep coming up with new ways to test general relativity, and, as far as I can tell from a distance, usually wind up confirming that "Yes, it works that way." We build a gravitational-wave detector that's much more sensitive than any preceding one, and we get observations that are in agreement with what we thought would happen, depending on events.
I see your point, but physicists aren't generally trying to disprove relativity or quantum mechanics. They're testing consequences as they can get the observations or experiments. It's possible that something would come up that would invalidate a previous theory (the 19th Century wave theory of light was superseded by a combination of specific observations, such as black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect), but I don't know that many physicists were trying to disprove it so much as fill in the details (which didn't fit in a big way).