Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
Thanks and Regards
Kaushal
Kaushal Shriyan kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika lauantai, 29. heinäkuuta 2006 11:30):
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:24:42AM -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
Yeah. Not only is it the original (well, make sure you get the ANSI C edition, because you don't really want *too* original), it's very well written and easy to learn from. There's really no need for another book.
Unless you actually want to learn C++. In some ways, learning C first will put you at a disadvantage there, because it's easy to develop good C habits which are bad C++ coding. In that case, I highly, highly recommendd "Object-Oriented Programming in C++" by Robert Lafore (currently, in its 4th edition: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672323087?v=glance).
It's very well organized, and teaches things clearly.
On 7/29/06, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:24:42AM -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
Yeah. Not only is it the original (well, make sure you get the ANSI C edition, because you don't really want *too* original), it's very well written and easy to learn from. There's really no need for another book.
Unless you actually want to learn C++. In some ways, learning C first will put you at a disadvantage there, because it's easy to develop good C habits which are bad C++ coding. In that case, I highly, highly recommendd "Object-Oriented Programming in C++" by Robert Lafore (currently, in its 4th edition: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672323087?v=glance).
It's very well organized, and teaches things clearly.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Hi Matthew Miller
Thanks for the advise, Just saw your snaps and felt great, are you from US I am Kaushal working for AOL as Tech Support Engineer
Thanks :)
Kaushal
if you're serious about C, you have to have a copy of harbison & steele -- that's not negotiable.
http://www.careferencemanual.com/
then take the time to google on c coding styles, print off a small variety of them, peruse, and pick the parts you like.
rday
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:54:09AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:24:42AM -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
Yeah. Not only is it the original (well, make sure you get the ANSI C edition, because you don't really want *too* original), it's very well written and easy to learn from. There's really no need for another book.
Unless you actually want to learn C++. In some ways, learning C first will put you at a disadvantage there, because it's easy to develop good C habits which are bad C++ coding. In that case, I highly, highly recommendd "Object-Oriented Programming in C++" by Robert Lafore (currently, in its 4th edition: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672323087?v=glance).
It's very well organized, and teaches things clearly.
But WHATEVER you buy, avoid any book by Herbert Schildt, like the plague. Mr. Schildt is an excellent writer. He explains things with great clarity. Unfortunately too often his lucid explanations are WRONG or are teaching BAD PRACTICE.
At 12:19 PM -0400 7/29/06, fredex wrote: ...
But WHATEVER you buy, avoid any book by Herbert Schildt, like the plague. Mr. Schildt is an excellent writer. He explains things with great clarity. Unfortunately too often his lucid explanations are WRONG or are teaching BAD PRACTICE.
Heh. I have one of his books. I keep it as a bad example. Someday I may be able to give it to an enemy. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/
On Saturday 29 July 2006 12:19, fredex wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:54:09AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:24:42AM -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
Yeah. Not only is it the original (well, make sure you get the ANSI C edition, because you don't really want *too* original), it's very well written and easy to learn from. There's really no need for another book.
Unless you actually want to learn C++. In some ways, learning C first will put you at a disadvantage there, because it's easy to develop good C habits which are bad C++ coding. In that case, I highly, highly recommendd "Object-Oriented Programming in C++" by Robert Lafore (currently, in its 4th edition: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672323087?v=glance).
It's very well organized, and teaches things clearly.
But WHATEVER you buy, avoid any book by Herbert Schildt, like the plague. Mr. Schildt is an excellent writer. He explains things with great clarity. Unfortunately too often his lucid explanations are WRONG or are teaching BAD PRACTICE.
Amen, I too wasted some money on his stuff.
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 09:24 -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C. -- ======================================================================= Your good nature will bring unbounded happiness. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
At 3:52 PM -0500 7/29/06, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 09:24 -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
Gee, some of us learned C from it. (Some of us even consider it the best book for learning C.) It also has the advantage of being much shorter than most of the alternatives, as well as containing something very like the C standard for reference.
It is not the best book for learning programming, but C would be a dreadful choice for one's first programming language. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 18:19 -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
At 3:52 PM -0500 7/29/06, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 09:24 -0500, Erich Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
Gee, some of us learned C from it. (Some of us even consider it the best book for learning C.) It also has the advantage of being much shorter than most of the alternatives, as well as containing something very like the C standard for reference.
It is not the best book for learning programming, but C would be a dreadful choice for one's first programming language.
Not necessarily. That is exactly the target course of the book I recommended elsewhere in this thread tackles that very topic and abolishes that old wives tale.
In fact it's been shown that students in introductory Pascal courses have no advantages over the students in the introductory C courses, with the distinction that the C students have greater motivation on the course material due to the fact that they are learning a production language.
TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/
LX
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:31:38PM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
It is not the best book for learning programming, but C would be a dreadful choice for one's first programming language.
Not necessarily. That is exactly the target course of the book I recommended elsewhere in this thread tackles that very topic and abolishes that old wives tale.
The old wives are often right.
In fact it's been shown that students in introductory Pascal courses have no advantages over the students in the introductory C courses, with the distinction that the C students have greater motivation on the course material due to the fact that they are learning a production language.
Comparing to Pascal is hardly fair or even useful, since it's barely used anymore (outside of Borland's Delphi). A better comparison would be Python, which is designed to be both a learning language *and* practical.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 07:11, Matthew Miller wrote:
Comparing to Pascal is hardly fair or even useful, since it's barely used anymore (outside of Borland's Delphi). A better comparison would be Python, which is designed to be both a learning language *and* practical.
Is it considered better these days to learn an object-oriented language first?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
i guess now there is no need to learn structured language , because as the languages are evolving they are going towards OOP designs and concepts. i guess its more disciplined to program in OOP.
so i guess the future now holds for OOP whatcha say ???
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:37:43PM +0500, Waqas Toor wrote:
i guess now there is no need to learn structured language , because as the languages are evolving they are going towards OOP designs and concepts. i guess its more disciplined to program in OOP.
Depends what you're doing. Object-oriented languages never really caught on for systems programming. (Although many of the good practices and techniques from OOP are borrowed.)
yes right but now the future of OS is also object oriented. so i guess when kernels are going to udher stand oop so its going to be a must then :)
NeXTSTEP is i think the first step towards OOK( object oriented kernels )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_operating_system (for ref)
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +0500, Waqas Toor wrote:
yes right but now the future of OS is also object oriented. so i guess when kernels are going to udher stand oop so its going to be a must then :)
The Linux kernel is a good example of use of some object-oriented concepts but in a procedural language. I don't think that a object oriented kernel as you describe is likely gain wide use in the practical world at this point. It certainly would't be Linux.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 07:49, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:37:43PM +0500, Waqas Toor wrote:
i guess now there is no need to learn structured language , because as the languages are evolving they are going towards OOP designs and concepts. i guess its more disciplined to program in OOP.
Depends what you're doing. Object-oriented languages never really caught on for systems programming. (Although many of the good practices and techniques from OOP are borrowed.)
Yes, if you do anything complicated in C, you end up with your basic data type being 'array of struct ...', a data object of sorts, perhaps with some function pointers in there too. However, it is just a very different way of thinking when the only way you can access data is through a method provided by someone else's object instead of your own function.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:29:38AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Comparing to Pascal is hardly fair or even useful, since it's barely used anymore (outside of Borland's Delphi). A better comparison would be Python, which is designed to be both a learning language *and* practical.
Is it considered better these days to learn an object-oriented language first?
Maybe. That was certainly the Official Wisdom for several years. However, I think many people do just fine learning modern procedural programming first.
On Monday 31 July 2006 14:47, Matthew Miller wrote:
Is it considered better these days to learn an object-oriented language first?
Maybe. That was certainly the Official Wisdom for several years. However, I think many people do just fine learning modern procedural programming first.
I guess that depends on one's point of view (or taste, actually), but in my opinion, a student really _has_learned_ to program when he can (at least in principle) understand what is _precisely_ going on with the machine when he executes a program. In that sense, it is essential that a student gets to understand that all being done in the processor is just a sequence of commands, and a full feeling of that one gets while learning assembly language (at least the basics of it).
However, the assembly language is not so popular/useful these days, and the second best thing is just the usual procedural language like C (although I would not advise C to be the first language learned).
On the other hand, object-oriented language gives one a completely different way of thinking, very useful for production work, but also very far from understanding what is actually going on and how does it get executed.
In my humble opinion, the question one needs to answer for oneself is _why_ does one want to learn programming? If the answer is similar to "I want to get a job and make money out of it", then go ahead and learn C++. But if the answer is more to "I can't sleep at night because I think about how is this or that done in my system, and I want to hack it so it works better", then it is definitely better to learn C prior to C++.
It's like learning to drive versus learning the details about the engine, transmission, etc. The latter gives you ability to drive, but also some extra information consisting mainly of understanding what's going on when you push the gas or brake pedal. The real question is whether one needs this extra understanding, which is mainly connected to potential latter use of one's driving skills. And of course, there is the psyhocogical effect of "being in control" feeling versus "get the job done" feeling.
:-) If we continue like this, the thread will become OT in a very short time... :-) But I do enjoy this one. :-)
Best regards, :-) Marko
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:41PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 06:36 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:41PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Look this is silly. The book mentioned above is the definitive reference book on C but it is not a book from which to learn to program in C.
Try learning to program in Python from the Python Language Reference Manual.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 06:36 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:41PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Look this is silly. The book mentioned above is the definitive reference book on C but it is not a book from which to learn to program in C.
Try learning to program in Python from the Python Language Reference Manual.
People have different backgrounds and learning styles. I personally found "The C Programming Language" to be great for learning C (way back in 1984...). A decade later I found "Programming Perl" (another 'reference') to be far better for me than "Learning Perl" after trying both.
For someone who already knows how to program well in multiple languages the verbose hand-holding of most 'Learning X' books may not be only unnesssary but an active impediment to rapid acquisition of the language: I just want a fast overview with a few examples to let me wrap my head around the language's structure and paradigms and then the available syntax, functions and libraries.
You may find 'Learning X' books better than a reference book for a language - but the converse can be true for other people.
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 08:24, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Look this is silly. The book mentioned above is the definitive reference book on C but it is not a book from which to learn to program in C.
Try learning to program in Python from the Python Language Reference Manual.
C is a pretty small language with a small standard library. It actually is possible to learn the basics from the reference as long as you mostly work with files and stdio. And of course there is plenty of example code around if you want to see how things have been done before. The messy part comes when you start using huge libraries for GUI or other complex operations.
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:24:03AM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Look this is silly. The book mentioned above is the definitive reference book on C but it is not a book from which to learn to program in C.
It's a small volume, but the back part is reference and the first part is instructional.
Try learning to program in Python from the Python Language Reference Manual.
Talk about silly.
It's a _very_ different book from the Python Language Reference Manual.
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 08:24 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 06:36 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:41PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Look this is silly. The book mentioned above is the definitive reference book on C but it is not a book from which to learn to program in C.
Try learning to program in Python from the Python Language Reference Manual. -- Aaron Konstam akonstam@sbcglobal.net
What you are saying is correct. "The C Programming Language" assumes basic familiarity with programming concepts. It is NOT a book you want to do ground-up teaching from when you are dealing with students that have never programmed before.
If you are trying to teach C and basic programming concepts at the same time, there are very few books out there that take care of that demographic. One of them that I found that does is "C How To Program", ISBN #0-13-226119-7.
LX
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 06:36 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:41PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
The book "The C Programming Language", Second Addition by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
The above is a good reference book but not one for learning to program in C.
On the contrary -- it's written in clear, simple language without much distraction, and explains the C language better than any other book I've seen.
Aaron Konstan is correct. The Kernigan-Ritchie manual is fine for reference, but is woefully inadequate for people in the process of learning to program. As a matter of fact it says right in the preface to the first edition that it is NOT an introductory programming manual; the book assumes familiarity with basic programming concepts. I myself have found the book inadequate to the task of teaching beginners.
The best book I have found for ground-up C programming is "C How To Program", by H.M. Deitel and P.J. Deitel. I went thru quite a few books before I found this masterpiece. ISBN number is 0-13-226119-7.
I like the second edition of this book better than the third. It seems more straightforward and "pure". The cutesy bug icons in the third edition don't do alot for me.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
LX
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:08:09PM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
Aaron Konstan is correct. The Kernigan-Ritchie manual is fine for reference, but is woefully inadequate for people in the process of learning to program. As a matter of fact it says right in the preface to the first edition that it is NOT an introductory programming manual; the book assumes familiarity with basic programming concepts. I myself have found the book inadequate to the task of teaching beginners.
I think we all agree on this. It's not a book for learning to program. However, it's hands-down the best book for someone who knows some basic programming to learn C.
The best book I have found for ground-up C programming is "C How To Program", by H.M. Deitel and P.J. Deitel. I went thru quite a few books before I found this masterpiece. ISBN number is 0-13-226119-7. I like the second edition of this book better than the third. It seems more straightforward and "pure". The cutesy bug icons in the third edition don't do alot for me.
It's up to 4th edition now. Perhaps it's only getting worse with each edition, which would explain the huge disparity in our perceptions.
Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
google "Learning C Programming"
:-)
On Saturday 29 July 2006 04:30, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
Others have suggested "The C Programming Language" and I agree.
If you really want to learn to program in *UNIX*, then, after K & R, you will want to read "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment", by W. Richard Stevens. Indispensable.
Dear Kaushal:
I used "C from A to Z", by Brian Costales (Prentice-Hall). It is an old book, but very good. For C++ I used "Developing C++ Software" by Russel Winder.
There is an old flame war. Some say that C and only C must be used. Other say that only C++ has objects, encapsulation, etc. and it is the greatest thing in the programming world. I see that the Linux kernel has been written in C and I guess it is good: some C++ programs are unreadable.
Juan Carlos
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Juan Carlos wrote:
Dear Kaushal:
I used "C from A to Z", by Brian Costales (Prentice-Hall). Itis an old book, but very good. For C++ I used "Developing C++ Software" by Russel Winder.
There is an old flame war. Some say that C and only C must beused. Other say that only C++ has objects, encapsulation, etc. and it is the greatest thing in the programming world. I see that the Linux kernel has been written in C and I guess it is good: some C++ programs are unreadable.
Another issue with C++ is that it is not very portable. If you stick with gcc, you don't have as many problems, but if you try to use C++ compilers from other vendors, you start getting into serious weird problems. Trying to find what vendors support what features is the big problem here. Because C++ has been a moving target over the last n+1 years, some things were supported and some were not, depending on who's compiler you used.
Not to mention the reputation that C++ has for generating binaries that are 33% (or more) larger than C.
Both have their uses.
As for books on learning C and/or C++... I use "C a Reference Manual" by Harrison and Steele" for C. (As well as Steven's books on Unix programming.)
As for C++, I use "The C++ programming language" by Stroustrup.
-- Does Bjarne Stroustrup think of women as objects?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:05:49AM -0700, alan wrote:
As for C++, I use "The C++ programming language" by Stroustrup.
Wow. :)
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 14:00 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Hi
Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
Thanks and Regards
Kaushal
Invest in a copy of "C How To Program" by Deitel and Deitel, ISBN #0-13-226119-7. It is the best choice for beginning programmers.
LX
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:17:01PM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
Invest in a copy of "C How To Program" by Deitel and Deitel, ISBN #0-13-226119-7. It is the best choice for beginning programmers.
Wow, I could not disagree more. Despite its widespread use as a textbook, I feel that this is one of the poorer choices. My major complaint is that it's full of forward references -- it constantly says "don't worry how this works -- we'll get to that later". And to add insult to that, when you get to later, it often says "as you learned before", refering back in a circle to the part which explained nothing! Plus, where there are explanations, they're often obtuse and needlessly confusing.
(This goes *triple* for "C++ How TO Program".)
Additionally, since it's a textbook, it comes with the ridiculous price of $80 or more.
Perhaps you had a really good teacher in a class which used this as a text? That could really make up for the problems.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 08:10 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:17:01PM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
Invest in a copy of "C How To Program" by Deitel and Deitel, ISBN #0-13-226119-7. It is the best choice for beginning programmers.
Wow, I could not disagree more. Despite its widespread use as a textbook, I feel that this is one of the poorer choices. My major complaint is that it's full of forward references -- it constantly says "don't worry how this works -- we'll get to that later". And to add insult to that, when you get to later, it often says "as you learned before", refering back in a circle to the part which explained nothing! Plus, where there are explanations, they're often obtuse and needlessly confusing.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Forward references arent a problem as long as the topics are taken care of, I havent' seen a case where they havent been. Also the explanations that I've seen are neither obtuse nor needlessly confusing. In any case this is a very poor complaint for the book; for some reason you seem to be grasping at straws.
(This goes *triple* for "C++ How TO Program".)
Additionally, since it's a textbook, it comes with the ridiculous price of $80 or more.
Well you should have stopped with the first paragraph, now you're displaying rank propaganda.
http://product.half.ebay.com/C-How-to-Program_W0QQprZ2473666QQtgZinfo
The last second edition I bought I got for around 15 bucks.
Perhaps you had a really good teacher in a class which used this as a text? That could really make up for the problems.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
LX
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:05:46AM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. Forward references arent a problem as long as the topics are taken care of, I havent' seen a case where they havent been. Also the explanations that I've seen are neither obtuse nor needlessly confusing. In any case this is a very poor complaint for the book; for some reason you seem to be grasping at straws.
It's a perfectly valid complaint -- the writing style used in a book is very important. You can call it straws if you want! And if you *like* your books to be read like choose-your-own adventures, where you flip back and forth to determine what's going on, okay, but there's other, better C books where you don't have to do that.
Additionally, since it's a textbook, it comes with the ridiculous price of $80 or more.
Well you should have stopped with the first paragraph, now you're displaying rank propaganda. http://product.half.ebay.com/C-How-to-Program_W0QQprZ2473666QQtgZinfo
Uh, it's not "rank propaganda" just because you can find it used for less. The full, new price is indeed over $80. (In fact, it's more like $100.)
What's with the aggression, here?
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 06:54 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:05:46AM -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. Forward references arent a problem as long as the topics are taken care of, I havent' seen a case where they havent been. Also the explanations that I've seen are neither obtuse nor needlessly confusing. In any case this is a very poor complaint for the book; for some reason you seem to be grasping at straws.
It's a perfectly valid complaint -- the writing style used in a book is very important. You can call it straws if you want! And if you *like* your books to be read like choose-your-own adventures, where you flip back and forth to determine what's going on, okay, but there's other, better C books where you don't have to do that.
Writing style is very important indeed, AAMOF I happen to concern myself with it on a regular basis. Again, you points are impotent in the respect that they have no teeth; you need to add dentures. The problem that I have is with people that offer no solutions but yet complain about offered solutions endlessly; it seems to be some sort of present day liberal-borne viral mental meme. The bottom line is that the book presents structured programming to beginners in a step by step format, and there's none of this choose-your-own propaganda that you spout there. I've been thru a slew of C books and this one is one of the better ones, period dot.
Additionally, since it's a textbook, it comes with the ridiculous price of $80 or more.
Well you should have stopped with the first paragraph, now you're displaying rank propaganda. http://product.half.ebay.com/C-How-to-Program_W0QQprZ2473666QQtgZinfo
Uh, it's not "rank propaganda" just because you can find it used for less. The full, new price is indeed over $80. (In fact, it's more like $100.)
What's with the aggression, here?
You call this aggression? I guess maybe then I should apologize for posting factual data concerning the actual real world price of the book, which btw can be had for 29 bucks off the link above, notwithstanding your 100$ propaganda. But I wont. If you post false propaganda on a technical list you should expect for that propaganda to be proven false. That's not aggression, that's just a fact.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
LX
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alan -
Benjamin Franz -
Erich Carlson -
Fred Smith -
Garry Williams -
Gene Heskett -
Juan Carlos -
Kaushal Shriyan -
Les Mikesell -
Lyvim Xaphir -
magicus -
Markku Kolkka -
Marko Vojinovic -
Matthew Miller -
Robert P. J. Day -
Tony Nelson -
Waqas Toor