C books for beginners
Nick Keighley
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:44:12 -0700, Minouch wrote:
> > I want to learn C++. However, many people tell me I should start with C
> > first, and after giving it alot of thought, i desided that maybe i
> > should.
many C++ programmers don't recommend this (added comp.lang.c++ in case
they want to chime in). Going from C to C++ you have to "unlearn" a lot.
> > Are there any good C books for beginners(i.o for those who don't alredy
> > know a programming lanuage), that you can recommend?
>
> I learned C++ first, then C. There are a few language differences that
> you have to be clear on, but other than that, I think either way is
> good. Keep in mind that C++ is a superset of C.
no. This is literally untrue. Yes there is a subset of C++ which is
almost C. A well written C++ program generally looks *nothing* like
a well written C program. The idioms are different.
> If you already know how to program, then I'd recommend Kernighan
> and Ritchie's "The C Programming Language", it's an indispensable
> resource to programmers and C programmers IMHO.
but not so hot for beginners (based on a very small sample). It seems to
be a bit too quick. I learned C from K&R and thought it was great, but C
was my n-th programming language.
> Settle for nothing else!
--
Nick Keighley
"In a profession plagued by, "when all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail," we get really excited when someone is able to come
along and prove that everything really *is* a nail if lambda is the
hammer." --B.R.Lewis (comp.lang.scheme)
Daniel Fox
news:8ad2cfb3.02041...@posting.google.com:
> Craig <as...@nospam.ok> wrote in message
> news:<g9ws8.7639$Hw6.2...@news1.telusplanet.net>...
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:44:12 -0700, Minouch wrote:
>
>> > I want to learn C++. However, many people tell me I should start
>> > with C first, and after giving it alot of thought, i desided that
>> > maybe i should.
>
> many C++ programmers don't recommend this (added comp.lang.c++ in case
> they want to chime in). Going from C to C++ you have to "unlearn" a
> lot.
Ten lashes with a wet goat. Unlearning implies you could never go back
to C and the knowledge you had learned before. This isn't true. You have
to learn different skill sets, yes... but can we dump this idea of
"unlearning"? There are many programmers who can code in both C and C++
accurately and efficiently, using the appropriate skill sets for each.
-Daniel
Brad Bishop
(of knowing C++) but I think you'll have a better understanding of how
things work. I also agree with the idea that you really don't have to
'unlearn' C to use C++. You have to learn a different approach (an
Object-Oriented approach) but I think it is important to have a more
well-rounded understanding of both prodecural programming as well as OO
programming. Neither methodology is a fix to every problem and sometimes a
mix of the two works quite nicely. Typically those who come fresh out of an
OO class want to make everything everywhere an object and end up making a
huge mess (I call them science projects) that is resource intensive (both in
memory and CPU cycles) and a pain to maintain.
Good luck in your endeavor,
Brad
Dave Mikesell
> 'unlearn' C to use C++. You have to learn a different approach (an
> Object-Oriented approach)
C++ easily supports procedural programming, object-oriented
programming, generic programming with templates, and combinations of
all three.