You know what, they can support the stoning of people like me (or like others) if they want. It's a free country (some restrictions may apply; freedom may compact in transit), and someone wanting to kill me horribly does me no harm. I'd very strongly object if they actually tried to put their beliefs into practice.
In other words, nobody has a clue how you'd handle credit. You're good at handling money as long as it's on a cash or equivalent basis, but that doesn't necessarily translate into handling credit responsibly. Lots of people who can do very nicely on pay-as-you-go can't handle ready access to credit.
If you want a good credit score, borrow some money and pay it back on or ahead of time. You should easily be able to get some good secured credit. If you just applied for a credit card, it would probably have an annual fee, but if you paid off the balance every month you wouldn't need to worry about the interest rate.
If there was a paper form with tick boxes, the defense could ask to see the form, so there's by transparency. The beef, AIUI, is not that there's an algorithm, but that it appears unfair to the defense and there's no way to know why the sentence was what it was.
It's entirely possible to upgrade a Windows machine without problems, sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for every Windows machine. Plenty have been reported as having problems.
What you're talking about raises the cost of a PC considerably. You're talking about reasonably frequent competent management by people who will keep up with things enough to know to stop a Windows 10 update, despite whatever Microsoft does. The update is unexpected. You may monitor the pressure in your tires, and keep them inflated, which is proper management, but you may not expect your tire vendor to send people out at night to swap your tires for some other model.
What you're talking about is a significant recurring expense, to remove the possibility of mishap. Most business owners won't have multi-thousand-dollar problems develop like that, so the insurance of competent maintenance is pretty expensive for what they get. As long as they keep backups, most problems will be solvable fairly fast.
Thing is, Steve Jobs did have a knack for finding what people would want rather than what they said they wanted, and his success rate at that was good enough so that people tend to forget the failures. It worked for him. I'm dubious that it will work with anyone but him.
If you're referring to the App Store and iOS, there are good reasons to have a walled garden (as well as good reasons not to have one). They aren't changing that any time soon, so iOS apps will normally have to be whitelisted.
Sometimes backwards compatibility just ain't worth the mess it causes.
Speaking as someone out in the real world, writing software that actually gets used, backwards compatibility is vital. If we had to rewrite our applications every five years or so, we'd never get much of anything useful done.
If you don't want to write your own templates, fine. It's a trickier part of the language, and can be reserved for people who know more about C++ than you do who put templates into libraries you can use.
However, if you use the standard container classes, iterators, and algorithms, you're using templates. If you don't use them, your code is clumsy and error-prone.
C++ has a uniform resource handling idiom. It doesn't handle memory one way and all other resources a worse way, like managed languages. There's advantages and disadvantages there.
C++ smart pointers are normally quite adequate for memory management, and C++ is less prone to leaking other resources than managed languages.
.startsWith() isn't a problem. Compare to a substring, and let the compiler optimize it..endsWith() works much the same way..equalsIgnoreCase() opens a can of worms when not using straight ASCII, but it can be done easily enough if there's a working case changer.
There's enough crap in std::string already, and these can be written as independent functions.
The linker is allowed to strip out anything it likes, as long as the output is a suitable executable that does all the volatile memory references and calls to I/O library functions that the original program specifies. It's not allowed to throw away information that would prevent that.
A properly written* C++ program doesn't have the same problem as C with buffer overruns. The trick is not to use certain functions and data types.
*"Properly written" here means written according to a suitable programming style, said style being enforceable by code review looking only locally. It's possible to verify that strings are std::strings locally. It's possible to verify that pointers go into std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr. It's possible to flag functions like memcpy() and strcpy() and allow them only under restricted conditions. The fact is that memcpy() is usually the wrong thing to do to copy C++ data, and there's really no good use for strcpy() if not using zero-terminated strings.
As C++ becomes richer, it becomes less error-prone. STL containers and std::string have done a lot to eliminate buffer overflows, for example, and smart pointers have wiped out large categories of memory-handling errors. Lambdas make declarations more local, which helps avoid errors. Adding "override" to our inheritance hierarchies chased out a significant number of bugs.
There have been other attempts at a new language to replace C++, but the problem is that they aren't C++, and there are lots of advantages to sticking with a good-enough established language, and not enough advantages to a "better C++".
C++'s largest problems are usually for compatibility with C, such as the use of "static" you pointed out, which meant file scope in some cases in C.
Using cstudio is a good idea (although "using namespace std;" is pretty common in.cpp files), but iostreams have problems, and there's times when cstdio is preferable (and this is only an illustration of a concept).
What surprised me was finding that this is legal. I hadn't realized before that keywords aren't keywords until after preprocessing, so "#define bool 2" is legal. I still don't think it's a good idea, but it's in conformance with the C++11 Standard.
Not quite free movement of goods. Individual consumers are restricted in buying things in other countries where they're cheaper and importing them. It's only businesses that get free movement of goods.
Policy is part of reality. The reality is that we're getting a large number of people who feel really shafted by the current system, and they're going to be in favor of change, even destructive change, because the system isn't working for them anyway. Policies should be created based on reality, including uncomfortable aspects.
Actually, I want my "betters" to make decisions for the other guys. After all, I'm not going to do anything particularly wrong, unlike lots of people out there. I'm perfectly willing to live with laws designed go make society function even when they cause problems for me, because I'm better off that way.
I also have the right to vote for people to make those decisions, and send them mail and email.
The trade wouldn't stop. It wouldn't be on the current basis, since the EU and what's left of the UK would have to negotiate trade deals, and the EU would be in a much stronger negotiating position. I think the UK would lose quite a bit.
Exactly what does the referendum mean in UK law? What are the UK laws on referendums like that? Until you can explain that to me, I really doubt you know what you're talking about with "no legal reason" and similar phrases.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardoning implies that Snowden violated the law, which he clearly did. It's a way of acknowledging that the crime committed was the right thing to do.
You know what, they can support the stoning of people like me (or like others) if they want. It's a free country (some restrictions may apply; freedom may compact in transit), and someone wanting to kill me horribly does me no harm. I'd very strongly object if they actually tried to put their beliefs into practice.
The Supreme Court knows more about the law than you or I do. I don't always think they're right, but I find it hard to believe that they're inept.
In other words, nobody has a clue how you'd handle credit. You're good at handling money as long as it's on a cash or equivalent basis, but that doesn't necessarily translate into handling credit responsibly. Lots of people who can do very nicely on pay-as-you-go can't handle ready access to credit.
If you want a good credit score, borrow some money and pay it back on or ahead of time. You should easily be able to get some good secured credit. If you just applied for a credit card, it would probably have an annual fee, but if you paid off the balance every month you wouldn't need to worry about the interest rate.
Credit scores are calculated using a secret algorithm that changes from time to time, particularly to deal with people trying to game the system.
The only transparency is what's in the credit report, not what they calculate from it.
If there was a paper form with tick boxes, the defense could ask to see the form, so there's by transparency. The beef, AIUI, is not that there's an algorithm, but that it appears unfair to the defense and there's no way to know why the sentence was what it was.
It's entirely possible to upgrade a Windows machine without problems, sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for every Windows machine. Plenty have been reported as having problems.
What you're talking about raises the cost of a PC considerably. You're talking about reasonably frequent competent management by people who will keep up with things enough to know to stop a Windows 10 update, despite whatever Microsoft does. The update is unexpected. You may monitor the pressure in your tires, and keep them inflated, which is proper management, but you may not expect your tire vendor to send people out at night to swap your tires for some other model.
What you're talking about is a significant recurring expense, to remove the possibility of mishap. Most business owners won't have multi-thousand-dollar problems develop like that, so the insurance of competent maintenance is pretty expensive for what they get. As long as they keep backups, most problems will be solvable fairly fast.
Thing is, Steve Jobs did have a knack for finding what people would want rather than what they said they wanted, and his success rate at that was good enough so that people tend to forget the failures. It worked for him. I'm dubious that it will work with anyone but him.
If you're referring to the App Store and iOS, there are good reasons to have a walled garden (as well as good reasons not to have one). They aren't changing that any time soon, so iOS apps will normally have to be whitelisted.
Speaking as someone out in the real world, writing software that actually gets used, backwards compatibility is vital. If we had to rewrite our applications every five years or so, we'd never get much of anything useful done.
If you don't want to write your own templates, fine. It's a trickier part of the language, and can be reserved for people who know more about C++ than you do who put templates into libraries you can use.
However, if you use the standard container classes, iterators, and algorithms, you're using templates. If you don't use them, your code is clumsy and error-prone.
C++ has a uniform resource handling idiom. It doesn't handle memory one way and all other resources a worse way, like managed languages. There's advantages and disadvantages there.
C++ smart pointers are normally quite adequate for memory management, and C++ is less prone to leaking other resources than managed languages.
There's enough crap in std::string already, and these can be written as independent functions.
regex can be an efficient use of my time. I don't expect it to be really fast in compiled code.
The linker is allowed to strip out anything it likes, as long as the output is a suitable executable that does all the volatile memory references and calls to I/O library functions that the original program specifies. It's not allowed to throw away information that would prevent that.
There's differences between C and C++ here.
A properly written* C++ program doesn't have the same problem as C with buffer overruns. The trick is not to use certain functions and data types.
*"Properly written" here means written according to a suitable programming style, said style being enforceable by code review looking only locally. It's possible to verify that strings are std::strings locally. It's possible to verify that pointers go into std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr. It's possible to flag functions like memcpy() and strcpy() and allow them only under restricted conditions. The fact is that memcpy() is usually the wrong thing to do to copy C++ data, and there's really no good use for strcpy() if not using zero-terminated strings.
I fully agree about C++ education.
A std::vector has to know what type it's got. Polymorphism in C++ requires pointers.
As C++ becomes richer, it becomes less error-prone. STL containers and std::string have done a lot to eliminate buffer overflows, for example, and smart pointers have wiped out large categories of memory-handling errors. Lambdas make declarations more local, which helps avoid errors. Adding "override" to our inheritance hierarchies chased out a significant number of bugs.
There have been other attempts at a new language to replace C++, but the problem is that they aren't C++, and there are lots of advantages to sticking with a good-enough established language, and not enough advantages to a "better C++".
C++'s largest problems are usually for compatibility with C, such as the use of "static" you pointed out, which meant file scope in some cases in C.
Using cstudio is a good idea (although "using namespace std;" is pretty common in .cpp files), but iostreams have problems, and there's times when cstdio is preferable (and this is only an illustration of a concept).
What surprised me was finding that this is legal. I hadn't realized before that keywords aren't keywords until after preprocessing, so "#define bool 2" is legal. I still don't think it's a good idea, but it's in conformance with the C++11 Standard.
Not quite free movement of goods. Individual consumers are restricted in buying things in other countries where they're cheaper and importing them. It's only businesses that get free movement of goods.
Policy is part of reality. The reality is that we're getting a large number of people who feel really shafted by the current system, and they're going to be in favor of change, even destructive change, because the system isn't working for them anyway. Policies should be created based on reality, including uncomfortable aspects.
Actually, I want my "betters" to make decisions for the other guys. After all, I'm not going to do anything particularly wrong, unlike lots of people out there. I'm perfectly willing to live with laws designed go make society function even when they cause problems for me, because I'm better off that way.
I also have the right to vote for people to make those decisions, and send them mail and email.
The trade wouldn't stop. It wouldn't be on the current basis, since the EU and what's left of the UK would have to negotiate trade deals, and the EU would be in a much stronger negotiating position. I think the UK would lose quite a bit.
Exactly what does the referendum mean in UK law? What are the UK laws on referendums like that? Until you can explain that to me, I really doubt you know what you're talking about with "no legal reason" and similar phrases.