C Programming

[Kaushal Shriyan]

Hi

Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"

Thanks and Regards

Kaushal

[Markku Kolkka]

Kaushal Shriyan kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika lauantai, 29. 
heinäkuuta 2006 11:30):
>  Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
http://tinyurl.com/jmlhu

-- 
 Markku Kolkka
 markku.kolkka(a)iki.fi

[Erich Carlson]

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

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

[Matthew Miller]

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(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Kaushal Shriyan]

On 7/29/06, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org&gt; 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(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
>  Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
>
>  --
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)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

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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

[Fred Smith]

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.

-- 
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
     heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------

[Tony Nelson]

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:[e-mail]>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

[Gene Heskett]

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.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

[Aaron Konstam]

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
>  
>  http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
>   
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: [phone] e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net

[Tony Nelson]

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
> >
> > http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
> >
>
> 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:[e-mail]>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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
>  >>
>  >> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
>  >>
>  >
>  >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:[e-mail]>
>        '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
>   
LX
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said,
"The handle is one of us!"   -- Turkish proverb
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[Matthew Miller]

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.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Les Mikesell]

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(a)gmail.com

[Waqas Toor]

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 ???

[Matthew Miller]

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.)

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Waqas Toor]

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)

[Matthew Miller]

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.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Matthew Miller]

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.



-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Marko Vojinovic]

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

[Matthew Miller]

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.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Aaron Konstam]

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(a)sbcglobal.net&gt;

[Benjamin Franz]

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.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

"It is moronic to predict without first establishing an error rate
 for a prediction and keeping track of one’s past record of accuracy."
                    -- Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled By Randomness

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Matthew Miller]

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.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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(a)sbcglobal.net&gt;
>   
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
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said,
"The handle is one of us!"   -- Turkish proverb
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
>  Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
>   
LX
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
"Anybody else wanna negotiate?" -- Maj. Korben Dallas
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[Matthew Miller]

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.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[magicus]

Kaushal Shriyan wrote:

>  Can any one here point me to "Learning C Programming"
google "Learning C Programming"

:-)



-- 

Music: http://www.myspace.com/acidredux

Links: http://del.icio.us/furlan

Home:  http://flprim.us/index.html

"Play--more than piety, more than charity or vigilance--is what allows 
human beings to transcend evil."
-- Tom Robbins (Jitterbug Perfume)

[Garry Williams]

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.

-- 
Garry T. Williams --- [phone]

[Juan Carlos]

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

[Alan]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Juan Carlos wrote:

>  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. 
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?

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:05:49AM -0700, alan wrote:
>  As for C++, I use "The C++ programming language" by
> Stroustrup. 
Wow. :)


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Individuals who make their abode in vitreous edifices
would be well advised to refrain from catapulting
projectiles.
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[Matthew Miller]

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.
 
-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
>  Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
>   
LX
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said,
"The handle is one of us!"   -- Turkish proverb
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

[Matthew Miller]

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?


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Lyvim Xaphir]

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(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
>  Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
>   
LX
-- 
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
"Anybody else wanna negotiate?" -- Maj. Korben Dallas
Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°