V
Victor Bazarov
Lucius said:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#prerequisite
(and read the rest of the FAQ, too).
V
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#prerequisite
(and read the rest of the FAQ, too).
V
A
Andrew Tomazos
Perhaps you missed the point of that page (which is easy to do). It
is an interactive tutorial. You have to type "help" to start it.
-Andrew.
J
jacob navia
Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
What ?
Schildt is a world-recognized authority on programming. They have been
translated into all major foreign languages.
<quote from his homepage>
He was a member of the original ANSI committee that standardized the C
language in 1989, and he was a member of the ANSI/ISO committee that
updated that standard in 1999. He was a member of the original ANSI/ISO
committee that standardized C++ in 1998. He is currently a member of
the ANSI/ISO committee that is creating the next standard for C++, which
will be completed within the next few years.
<END QUOTE>
This character assasination orchestrated by some obscure zealots in
usenet like this "Jorgen Grahn" of world fame can't go on like this.
Look at the next sentence:
So, he hasn't read any of the books of Mr Schild since 20 years, and
obviously doesn't have ANYTHING to justify his claim besides...
yes, besides WHAT?
What are YOUR qualifications?
What ?
Schildt is a world-recognized authority on programming. They have been
translated into all major foreign languages.
<quote from his homepage>
He was a member of the original ANSI committee that standardized the C
language in 1989, and he was a member of the ANSI/ISO committee that
updated that standard in 1999. He was a member of the original ANSI/ISO
committee that standardized C++ in 1998. He is currently a member of
the ANSI/ISO committee that is creating the next standard for C++, which
will be completed within the next few years.
<END QUOTE>
This character assasination orchestrated by some obscure zealots in
usenet like this "Jorgen Grahn" of world fame can't go on like this.
Look at the next sentence:
So, he hasn't read any of the books of Mr Schild since 20 years, and
obviously doesn't have ANYTHING to justify his claim besides...
yes, besides WHAT?
What are YOUR qualifications?
B
Balog Pal
....jacob navia said:
Nevertheless his books have the 'strictly NOT recommended' badge from
actually recognised C++ practitioners... I keep wondering why not start
with recommended books is time is committed.
B
Balog Pal
Andrew Tomazos said:
And what makes you sure?
J
jacob navia
Balog Pal a écrit :
This is totally BOGUS.
Which "practicioners"???
Care to name them?
WHY "not recommended"???
Care to bring some examples?
Wait a minute. Somebody working in the standards committee of C and
C++ for years? Somebody with millions of copies sold?
You are just repeating those Usenet unfounded accusations without
bringing any proof or even the beginning of a proof that your rumours
are true!
This is totally BOGUS.
Which "practicioners"???
Care to name them?
WHY "not recommended"???
Care to bring some examples?
Wait a minute. Somebody working in the standards committee of C and
C++ for years? Somebody with millions of copies sold?
You are just repeating those Usenet unfounded accusations without
bringing any proof or even the beginning of a proof that your rumours
are true!
C
Christopher Dearlove
Francesco said:
It's a great book, but I really wouldn't recommend it to a non-programmer.
A
Alf P. Steinbach
* jacob navia:
If you're interested in that then there are FAQs (including the
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ FAQ), web-sites and more dedicated to the stumbling
ways of Schildt -- it seems that you have made no effort at all!
There's no shortage of facts and examples.
Now it's human to err, but it's super-human to err so consistently and so often
as Shildt, and to present it in so convincing a way -- he's a /good/ writer.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
(having had the pleasure of correcting some errors in a web-site dedicated to
the errors in one of Shcildt's books
)
If you're interested in that then there are FAQs (including the
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ FAQ), web-sites and more dedicated to the stumbling
ways of Schildt -- it seems that you have made no effort at all!
There's no shortage of facts and examples.
Now it's human to err, but it's super-human to err so consistently and so often
as Shildt, and to present it in so convincing a way -- he's a /good/ writer.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
(having had the pleasure of correcting some errors in a web-site dedicated to
the errors in one of Shcildt's books
)
J
jacob navia
Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
Look, I went there, and I landed in
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
There, I can read:
<quote>
3.14
## An object is either a variable or a constant that resides at a
## physical memory address.
In C, a constant does not reside in memory, (except for some string
literals) and so is not an object.
<end quote>
This is completely wrong. Outside some constants that are inlined by the
compiler because the processor supports inlined constants, all other
constants are just like a character string.
For instance in a x86 implementation:
double a = 12.345;
The double constant 12.345 will reside in memory. The same for long
double constants, for structures initialized by constants,
for 64 bit constants, etc etc.
The only constants that are initialized inline are the inlined constants
accepted inline by the processor (in the code stream)
Conclusion:
Schild is right and Mr Feather (that I respect of course) is wrong.
Mainly the other criticism are matters of style, where Mr Feather
differs from Mr Schildt. He would have more explained about the
standard, more precise stuff, etc.
For instance Schildt says:
this limits the total character set to 255 characters.
and Feather criticises:
Actually, it limits it to UCHAR_MAX characters, which is at least 255,
but can be more.
Great. Obviously Feather is pedantically right, but is it very important?
Maybe. This is a matter of style, and doesn't justify the attacks
that are given here.
Look, I went there, and I landed in
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
There, I can read:
<quote>
3.14
## An object is either a variable or a constant that resides at a
## physical memory address.
In C, a constant does not reside in memory, (except for some string
literals) and so is not an object.
<end quote>
This is completely wrong. Outside some constants that are inlined by the
compiler because the processor supports inlined constants, all other
constants are just like a character string.
For instance in a x86 implementation:
double a = 12.345;
The double constant 12.345 will reside in memory. The same for long
double constants, for structures initialized by constants,
for 64 bit constants, etc etc.
The only constants that are initialized inline are the inlined constants
accepted inline by the processor (in the code stream)
Conclusion:
Schild is right and Mr Feather (that I respect of course) is wrong.
Mainly the other criticism are matters of style, where Mr Feather
differs from Mr Schildt. He would have more explained about the
standard, more precise stuff, etc.
For instance Schildt says:
this limits the total character set to 255 characters.
and Feather criticises:
Actually, it limits it to UCHAR_MAX characters, which is at least 255,
but can be more.
Great. Obviously Feather is pedantically right, but is it very important?
Maybe. This is a matter of style, and doesn't justify the attacks
that are given here.
V
Victor Bazarov
Balog said:
"Quite familiar" doesn't equate to "capable of teaching" or "proficient
in". Just a thought...
V
B
Bo Persson
Christopher said:
So he has also written another book, that IS intended for someone
wanting to become a programmer using C++:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/programming.html
Bo Persson
B
Balog Pal
jacob navia said:
Is it? This topic jumps up a few times a year, and people who say something
are around...
Look here:
http://accu.org/index.php?module=bookreviews&func=search
and try to find another author with similar number of 'not recommended'
books.
The reviews has names and explanation laid out. If you have a different
opinion maybe time to bring on some stuff in defense -- calling names will
hardly help.
Selling books is mostly a self-generating thing. In many areas I found good
selling books (and music, movies, etc.) that were worth noting (to me) and
the opposite is true too.
And being on board means even less, Danny.K is a perfect example...
Also, being committee member (that only requires time to be there and ~400
bucks a year) does not make a good writer. Or even one interested in the
stuff. I am reading comp.std.c++ for a decade, never seen S. there, either
asking questions or telling a word. Not like say, Scott Meyers who could
very likely just live from his name -- but instead struggles to understand
things.
Not so much 'usebnet as ACCU, that is a good ogr with really good and caring
people -- but you're right, I did not read the said books myself, and refer
to others' reviews. I did not claim otherwise. The OP shall use his own
wisdom to pick which advise to listen to.
N
Noah Roberts
Pete said:
That was going to be my point. I didn't know what it was for the C++
standard committee, but like 10-15 years ago I was on the X Standard
Committee. I sent an email saying I wanted to work on part of the X
code. I think I made one 3 line change that was later reverted.
I was a novice programmer at the time...a decent one, but novice none
the less.
Just because you can say you're on some standard doesn't mean you know
your ass from a hole in the ground...or anything else for that matter.
Hell, there are some here that I believe actually DO attend c++ standard
meetings that I disagree with on several levels. It's not a path to
godhood status. At best it means you want to see it done your way
enough to actually attend the meetings.
N
Noah Roberts
http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/
Many other C++ instructional books go the hard, and arguably erroneous,
path: learning the C part first. This book goes straight to C++ and
ignores the C crap you'll rarely use.
F
Francesco
-------
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
bool kidding = true;
/* Well, neither I would. As you can read from the statement you
quoted from me, I'm suggesting it to the will-be [novice] programmer
that comes out from "Once you get even just a basic experience..." ;-)
In my opinion, someone that does something really simple on a piece of
code, such as changing the following: */
cout << "Hello, world!" << endl;
/* to the following: */
cout << "Hello," << "world!" << endl;
/* after having run the program and having seen (and understood) the
(different) results, has already passed the "non-programmer" stage ;-)
I admit that "digesting" that book needs some more grip about
programming for starters, but since nobody pointed it out before, I
thought I had to mention it
- after all, the "missing grip" can begained quite easily if one's intelligent enough.
The OP, asking "Need a C++ book for complete idiot!" here on clc++,
has already proved to have the intelligence needed to get a grip
quickly.
Hey, you, anybody, don't daydream, this post doesn't exist.
If you quote any part of it I'll argue 'till death that you made it
up ;-) */
return kidding = false;
}
Yes, that's a great book!
Francesco
F
Francesco
Ah! I'll get a copy. Thanks a lot for pointing this out Bo, the next
time I'll have to, I'll suggest both, I'm sure it's great.
Cheers,
Francesco
B
Balog Pal
Stuart Golodetz said:
You mean ther re-discover the whlle in the crooked form, instead of using
the existing wisdom? we already have SICP, that uses scheme for the
purpose -- for a set of good reasons too -- nothing in the rationale would
apply to java language let alone system...
Then C++? Well, that is for sure ;-)
But UNI hase some aim -- and the easiness of teaching something is hardly
relevant with reachng it.
S
SG
Probably. But this is not what it's about. As far as the language is
concerned, this literal is a scalar rvalue and as such it refers to a
value and not to a memory location like an LValue or a class-type
RValue.
What about this:
int foo(int x) {
return x * 32;
}
If I compile this with optimizations turned on it gets replaced with
00000000 <foo(int)>:
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
3: 8b 45 08 mov 0x8(%ebp),%eax
6: 5d pop %ebp
7: c1 e0 03 shl $0x5,%eax
a: c3 ret
Tell me. Where is this constant 32? It's gone!
I'd rather read something by an author who knows what he/she's talking
about. I consider texts by authors who extrapolate and make stuff up
instead of doing a proper research to be harmful.
I'm not familiar with the author you are defending, though.
Cheers!
SG
D
Default User
Balog said:
How can that be? What has the world come to if you can't trust what a
guy has written on his own web site? The foundations of the internet
could be shaken to their core.
Brian
J
jacob navia
SG a écrit :
You see the $5 there?
No?
You need better glasses...
2 ^ 5 is 32.
That's where the 32 is.
OK. At least you have the honsety to acknowledge that without starting
to denigrate him without even knowing what he writes.
I do not know him either. What bothers me is these general personality
destruction gatherings where a guy is given to pasture and
destroyed by a MOB!
You see the $5 there?
No?
You need better glasses...
2 ^ 5 is 32.
That's where the 32 is.
OK. At least you have the honsety to acknowledge that without starting
to denigrate him without even knowing what he writes.
I do not know him either. What bothers me is these general personality
destruction gatherings where a guy is given to pasture and
destroyed by a MOB!