Best book to learn C++11 and C++14?

[Queequeg]

Hi,

I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11
and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have
any recommendations?

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Manfred]

On 9/19/2019 4:24 PM, Queequeg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11
> and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have
> any recommendations?
>

"Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

The following stops at C++11, anyone knows if he'll do a new edition for
C++20?
"The C++ Programming Language" (4th Edition, Bjarne Stroustrup)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/388242/the-definitive-c-book-guide-and-list

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

quee...@trust.no1 (Queequeg) spake the secret code
<d4e294a4-bef9-463a...@trust.no1> thusly:

>I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11
>and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have
>any recommendations?

Some people (not me) don't like Stroustrup's presentation style. If
you're in that camp, then you might prefer the book by Stanley
Lippman, "C++ Primer". This is currently in it's 5th edition which
came out 2012 (and claims to be fully updated for the C++11 standard).
There is a 6th edition due out in November 2020, but you probably
don't want to wait that long.

For full coverage of the standard library you might like Josuttis "C++
Standard Library" (get the later edition).

There are also plenty of books focused on specific topics. For
test-driven development I like Jeff Langr "Modern C++ Programming with
Test-Driven Development". I'm currently reading "C++ Concurrency in
Action" by Anthony Williams. I'm liking this book quite a bit. It
manages to explain the complex topic of concurrency/threads/tasks/locks
in a manner that is clear without being too wordy.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[Queequeg]

Manfred <non...@add.invalid> wrote:

> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

Thanks! I found it online.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Juha Nieminen]

Queequeg <quee...@trust.no1> wrote:
> Manfred <non...@add.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)
>
> Thanks! I found it online.

It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
intellectual property.

[Keith Thompson]

That book is available from online retailers, in paper and ebook forms.
I *hope* that's what Queequeg was referring to.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[Queequeg]

Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:

>> Thanks! I found it online.
>
> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

It's funny how quick people are to jump to wrong conclusions based on
limited input and their own experience.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Frederick Gotham]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:16:43 PM UTC+1, Juha Nieminen wrote:

> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?

[Bonita Montero]

>>> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

>> Thanks! I found it online.

> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Effective+Modern+C%2B%2B%22+doctype%3Apdf
;-)

[David Brown]

Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing). But copyright abuse is
not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property. (To be
"theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
making a copy is not theft.) However, accurate terms such as
"unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".

Not that there was any suggestion of copyright abuse here - Queequeg
(presumably) found a legitimate website selling the book.

[Frederick Gotham]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:

> > Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> >
>
> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing). But copyright abuse is
> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property. (To be
> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
> making a copy is not theft.) However, accurate terms such as
> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".

I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.

[Queequeg]

Frederick Gotham <cauldwel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
>> intellectual property.
>
> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?

Fun fact: in my jurisdiction, downloading music, movies or ebooks is
completely legal. Only sharing (therefore, downloading with torrents
qualify) is not. For some reason it's different only with computer
programs and games.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[David Brown]

Piracy is theft.

Making unlicensed copies, like copying e-books, games, music, etc., that
you are supposed to buy, is not theft. It is illegal, but it is not
theft. And it is certainly not piracy.

I hope that answers your original question.

[Frederick Gotham]

So when does making unlicensed copies become piracy? Does it become piracy when you try to sell these unlicensed copied to make a profit?

[David Brown]

Never.

> Does it become piracy when you try to sell these unlicensed copied to make a profit?
>

No.

It becomes piracy when you attack the ship carrying the book and steal
it physically by violence or threats of violence.


There can be different levels of law-breaking depending on whether you
are copying for private use, copying to sell, etc. In particular, in
most jurisdictions (AFAIK), downloading an unlicensed copy of
copyrighted works is illegal but not a crime. Selling it might make it
a crime. And in some places, making it available for download is also a
crime, as can breaking encryption for the purposes of evading licensing.

But it is never theft, and never piracy.

[Öö Tiib]

I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions.

[David Brown]

Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
"software piracy". The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
terms used are important enough to bother being accurate. (We are only
having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)

There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
Somalian coast.

[Chris Vine]

These semantic discussions are a waste of time. What does it matter if
breaching copyright (the principles but not details of which are mainly
uniform within the "western" world) is "piracy" or "theft". It is
unlawful and can render you liable to civil damages, and is normally a
criminal offence if done for profit (it is within the EU, North America
and some other places).

[Chris Vine]

On 30 Sep 2019 14:47:24 GMT

quee...@trust.no1 (Queequeg) wrote:
> Frederick Gotham <cauldwel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> >> intellectual property.
> >
> > Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
>
> Fun fact: in my jurisdiction, downloading music, movies or ebooks is
> completely legal. Only sharing (therefore, downloading with torrents
> qualify) is not. For some reason it's different only with computer
> programs and games.

Then you are not in the EU or North America. As regards the EU, the
current EU Copyright Directive is Directive 2019/790, supplementing
Directive 2001/29/EC, and would preclude these things.

Elsewhere, I am surprised that downloading books and movies is legal
under the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties but if you
tell me it is, so be it. I also can't see what difference it makes
whether it is propagated by a torrent or not. Are you in China?

[David Brown]

Of course it matters. If you steal something from me, I no longer have
it. If you copy something I wrote, I still have the original. Calling
copyright infringement "theft" is wrong. Calling it "piracy" is
downright silly.

Driving 10 km/h over the speed limit is illegal, because it increases
the risk of dangerous accidents. So if you are caught doing it, you get
a fine - and hopefully as a result, you won't do it again. Do you think
it would be a good idea to call it attempted mass murder, on the basis
that you might have killed someone?

Copyright infringement is illegal, and you should not do it. That does
not mean it is theft, piracy, or a crime. No fair justice system would
treat it that way. So why would you want to mix the terms?

But you are right that such semantic discussions are mostly a waste of
time, as people rarely take any new understanding to heart and continue
to muddle their terms. Hopefully, however, the guy whose question
started this branch, has learned a little from it.

[Chris Vine]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:33:35 +0200

On the principle of "theft", I don't agree. If you steal a book of mine
you deprive me of it. If you unlawfully copy the book and deliberately
make it available for download online, you deprive me of book sales.
The wrong is analogous if not direct. You are liable to me in civil
damages for my losses, and a court can issue an injunction on my
application restraining the unlawful publication.

You wrong as a matter of fact about criminality. Not all breach of
copyright is a criminal offence in addition to being a civil wrong, but
where done for profit it usually is. You are simply wrong that for
breaches of copyright "it does not mean it is ... a crime".

In the UK the provision in question is section 107 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended and you can read it at your
leisure here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107 .
Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (covering all members of the World Trade Organization)
requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and
penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright
piracy on a commercial scale". Directive 2001/29/EC is more opaque
about criminal offences: Article 8.1 says that "Member States shall
provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements
of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take
all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies
are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective,
proportionate and dissuasive." The need for them to be dissuasive
implies criminal sanction for willful commercial breach of copyright
and I believe all EU members have in fact implemented such sanctions,
if only because they are also members of TRIPS.

The paucity of your argument is made evident by your implication that I
was comparing copyright infringement to mass murder, or any other kind
of unlawful killing for that matter. No fair reading of my post could
possibly imply that. Nor for that matter do I think that when people
refer to copyright "piracy" (I did not) they are making a similar
suggestion. I do say that there is an analogy to theft. And I do say
that the semantic arguments are a waste of time.

[Queequeg]

Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Then you are not in the EU or North America.

I'm in Poland, which unfortunately is part of the EU.

> As regards the EU, the current EU Copyright Directive is Directive
> 2019/790, supplementing Directive 2001/29/EC, and would preclude these
> things.

I don't know about EU laws, but Polish law allows it.

http://www.copyright.gov.pl/media/download_gallery/Act%20on%20Copyright%20and%20Related%20Rights.pdf

See articles 23 and 116.

> I also can't see what difference it makes whether it is propagated by
> a torrent or not.

I don't know details of the bittorrent protocol, but it's widely agreed
that if you use it to download a file, you're inherently sharing it. Maybe
there are (modified?) clients that allow you to only download without
uploading even a tiny bit...

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>>
>> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
>> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
>> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions.
>
> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> "software piracy".

"Piracy" is a commonly used term for copyright infringement.
You made several posts saying simply that it's "never piracy" before
you got around to letting anyone know what point you were making
(that you disagree with the way the word is used).

I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
about C++*.

[Chris Vine]

On 01 Oct 2019 16:10:09 GMT

Thank you for the link. However, I cannot see how your summary of the
law in Poland is consistent with it, having regard to the economic
rights given to copyright owners under Division 2 of Chapter 3 and the
permitted use exceptions in Division 3 of that Chapter. Those
provisions give rise to civil liabilities (Chapter 9), but I note that
the criminal sanctions under Chapter 14 are also somewhat far reaching.
This seems to me to be a relatively unexceptional implementation of
Directive 2001/29/EC, not far distant from the implementation in the UK.
Bittorent seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

[David Brown]

I think you are misunderstanding what "theft" means. If you have a
physical book, and I take it from you unlawfully, it is stealing - you
no longer have the book, and I have it. If you have a computer file and
I copy it unlawfully, it is not theft of the file - you still have the
file. If you had planned to make money from that file, and can't now
that I have an unlawful copy that I pass on to others, it is not theft
of the file - you still have the file. It is not theft of your lost
income, because you never had that income to take (it is potential
income, not real money), and I don't have the money either. If it is
over a certain limit, it is a crime - but it is not theft.

If I break your fingers, thus depriving you from income from working as
a programmer, I am committing a crime - but I did not steal your fingers.

You are also mixing up crimes with unlawful actions. A "crime" is when
you do something against the state - you can be arrested by police,
charged in a criminal court, and jailed or fined by the court - if
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In civil lawsuits, you do
something against another person that does not harm the state - such as
copyright infringement, breaking a contract, etc. You cannot be
arrested for it, but you can be summed to a civil court. The case is
decided on "burden of evidence" (i.e., a fair fight between the
parties), and the losing part must pay compensation to the winner, and
perhaps abide by injunctions - but you cannot be imprisoned.

(This is based on my rough understanding, and on an average for Western
judicial systems. Don't take it as legal advice!)

> You wrong as a matter of fact about criminality. Not all breach of
> copyright is a criminal offence in addition to being a civil wrong,

No breach of copyright is a criminal office - it is a civil offence.

> but
> where done for profit it usually is. You are simply wrong that for
> breaches of copyright "it does not mean it is ... a crime".

Depriving someone of their expected income can be a criminal offence.
In some jurisdictions, there are additional laws making things like
breaking encryption systems a criminal offence. But it is not the
copyright breach that is the crime - it is the other matters or
consequences of it.

(And even when it leads to a crime, that crime is not "theft" and it
most certainly is not "piracy".)

>
> In the UK the provision in question is section 107 of the Copyright,
> Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended and you can read it at your
> leisure here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107 .
> Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
> Property Rights (covering all members of the World Trade Organization)
> requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and
> penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright
> piracy on a commercial scale". Directive 2001/29/EC is more opaque
> about criminal offences: Article 8.1 says that "Member States shall
> provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements
> of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take
> all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies
> are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective,
> proportionate and dissuasive." The need for them to be dissuasive
> implies criminal sanction for willful commercial breach of copyright
> and I believe all EU members have in fact implemented such sanctions,
> if only because they are also members of TRIPS.
>
> The paucity of your argument is made evident by your implication that I
> was comparing copyright infringement to mass murder, or any other kind
> of unlawful killing for that matter. No fair reading of my post could
> possibly imply that. Nor for that matter do I think that when people
> refer to copyright "piracy" (I did not) they are making a similar
> suggestion. I do say that there is an analogy to theft. And I do say
> that the semantic arguments are a waste of time.
>

I did not in any way imply that you viewed copyright infringement as
being akin to mass murder. (I /have/ seen public figures claim it is as
bad as real piracy, which can involve murders - but I am not suggesting
at all that you think that.) And I agree that when people talk about
"software piracy" they do not mean "real piracy". But they often /do/
think it is theft, which is wrong.

I believe we agree that simple copyright infringement is typically a
civil matter, leading perhaps to being sued for compensation. And we
agree that more serious cases, such as when copies are sold or the the
rightful owner loses significant money, can be crimes.

What we do not agree on is the name of the crime (when it is a crime).
AFAIK, it is never "theft". And it is never "piracy" - though people
use that term. People also incorrectly call it a crime, "theft" or
"piracy" even for cases that are not a crime at all.

I believe you will not find anyone in this newsgroup who could honestly
deny having ever breached a copyright. But I believe you will find very
few who would admit to being a criminal, a thief, or a pirate. The
terms /do/ matter.

But it is probably still a waste of time arguing about the terms.

[Chris Vine]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:50:55 -0700
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> >>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
> >>
> >> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> >> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
> >> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions.
> >
> > Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> > "software piracy".
>
> "Piracy" is a commonly used term for copyright infringement.
> You made several posts saying simply that it's "never piracy" before
> you got around to letting anyone know what point you were making
> (that you disagree with the way the word is used).
>
> I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
> I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
> clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
> about C++*.

A fair point as regards topicality, but any C++ source code is a
protected work under copyright, and both (a) commercial exploitation of
that code, and (b) protection of open source code, depends on effective
copyright protection. On point (b), the GPL (copyleft) would be
worthless without effective controls on copying.

Proprietary code may also be protected by patents which is another
kettle of fish. But the topic is sort-of on topic, particularly given
the original posting which prompted it.

[Chris Vine]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 21:07:39 +0200
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> I think you are misunderstanding what "theft" means.

[snip]

I said copyright infringement, particularly for commercial purposes, was
analogous to theft. It is.

> No breach of copyright is a criminal office - it is a civil offence.

[snip]

You are completely and utterly wrong, and bewilderingly so. I gave you
links to the provisions which indicate what copyright infringement is a
criminal offence (to which another poster has now added Polish law). I
hope for honesty on your part so I assume you have not got around to
reading any of it.

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
[161 lines deleted]

> But it is probably still a waste of time arguing about the terms.

Yes.

[David Brown]

I had not got around to reading it.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems I was badly outdated, and certain types
of copyright infringement are criminal offences in their own right,
rather than the crime being in addition to the civil offence of
copyright infringement. Thank you for the correction here. (I am
assuming that other jurisdictions are similar.)

As I read the link, simple copyright infringement for personal
non-commercial use is still just a civil matter.

But while commercial copyright infringement is a crime, it is not theft
- any more than it is vandalism or another crime. Nor is it piracy.

[Manfred]

On 10/1/2019 9:22 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:50:55 -0700
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>>>>

>> I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
>> I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
>> clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
>> about C++*.
>
> A fair point as regards topicality, but any C++ source code is a
> protected work under copyright, and both (a) commercial exploitation of
> that code, and (b) protection of open source code, depends on effective
> copyright protection. On point (b), the GPL (copyleft) would be
> worthless without effective controls on copying.

Indeed, copyright law no fun, but still it is of interest to any
software programmer, so even if it is not specific to C++, the
occasional discussion on the matter can be accepted.
Even more since this is slippery subject, wherein one can get easily
mistaken, if judging only from the point of view of common sense.