Practical C++ Programming, Second Edition 266
Practical C++ Programming, Second Edition | |
author | Steve Oulline |
pages | 549 |
publisher | O'Reilly & Associates |
rating | 7 |
reviewer | Adrien Lamothe |
ISBN | 0596004192 |
summary | Guide to learning C++ and programming style. |
Practical C++ Programming is a fairly large book: 549 pages organized into six parts containing 30 chapters and 5 appendixes. The parts are as follows:
- The Basics
- Simple Programming
- Advanced Types and Classes
- Advanced Programming Concepts
- Other Language Features
- Appendixes.
I must start by saying that I like the book -- I think it has value. There are a number of things I really appreciate about the book. There are also some problems that adversely impact one segment of the book's intended audience (more about those later.)
The book discusses all the essential elements of C++. Areas covered include: Class definition, namespaces, scope definition and resolution, operator and function overloading, object memory allocation (i.e. new and delete,) type casting, exceptions, inheritance, templates (including an introduction to the Standard Template Library,) the Input/Output system (including the C I/O library), and pointers. All language operators are discussed (i.e. relational, assignment, etc.) Also covered are language elements that C++ has in common with C. The other areas of instruction (programming style, software development concepts, programming tools) are intertwined with the primary topic throughout the course of the book.
One of the book's strong points is the author's excellent conversational writing style. It's hard to find books that combine good technical information with clear expository writing (O'Reilly seems to publish most of them.) Practical C++ Programming definitely succeeds in this area. The author frequently references his own experience to reinforce concepts on programming style, design and debugging. I found his anecdotes useful and occasionally humorous. The book also contains small sections of text that serve to warn the reader of pitfalls (these are marked with a bear trap icon) and areas where caution should be exercised (marked with bear paw tracks). Also, some of the source code examples contain intentional bugs, which the author explains at the end of each chapter. Diagrams, tables and source code examples are found on almost every page of the book, and these are used to keep the reader engaged with the textual discourse. My favorite diagram is Figure 7-1. "Software life cycle," on page 88; I emphasize with the dinosaur.
The book contains some interesting programming examples. The chapters on operator overloading and floating-point math contain source code illustrating how to deal with the numeric precision problems that plague all computers and computer languages. The chapter on the Standard Template Library contains a program showing how to create and use objects that manage a simple roster for enrollment and grading of students. The book also contains several examples of linked-lists and trees, for the purpose of teaching the reader how to use pointers, and to also show the reader the power and usefulness of the Standard Template Library.
Now to speak about the book's shortcomings. First, although the book does a good job of covering the important C++ topics of classes, inheritance, and templates, I think it falls a bit short in these areas (especially the coverage of inheritance). Also, the terms instantiation, polymorphism and encapsulation are not used in the book. The book could have provided a bit more insight into object-oriented concepts. Also, these areas of the book are sparsely diagrammed. Second, source code errors and typos appear regularly enough to frustrate an inexperienced reader. I also found a couple of diagrams to be confusing. Third, there are occasional misleading statements that a beginner probably won't recognize as such. Because of these problems, I cannot recommend the book to people with no previous programming experience. I'm surprised that these problems made it into a second edition.
I think that despite these problems, the book has value to experienced programmers who want to learn C++. C programmers in particular will have an easier time dealing with the source code errors. Also, I think that the book can be used by beginning programmers in a classroom environment, providing the instructor understands the book's problems and is prepared to guide students around them. The book should be particularly useful when read in conjunction with a good C++ reference guide.
Practical C++ Programming is an ambitious work in its breadth and depth. It covers more areas of software development than other C++ books. It takes an interesting approach that some readers will appreciate and others may not.
I would like to have seen a more detailed and complete explanation of the object-oriented aspects of C++ (including more diagrams). A table showing all functions for Standard Template Library containers would have been nice (the book does make reference to two STL web sites). Some mention of third-party object libraries (such as Rogue Wave, Qt, etc.) and their uses would have been helpful.
The lack of a detailed explanation of inheritance may not be bad. I'm one of those who believe that heavy reliance on inheritance causes serious maintainability problems. However, I think the book should have covered this topic more fully, so the reader would understand this issue.
In summary, Practical C++ Programming is a good book that really shines in some aspects and falls short in others. With some improvement, it could be a great book.
You can purchase Practical C++ Programming, Second Edition from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
$4 less and free shipping at amazon! (Score:3, Informative)
free on safari.oreilly.com (Score:4, Informative)
Re:free on safari.oreilly.com (Score:4, Funny)
Re:free on safari.oreilly.com (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of the book's rating on amazon (Score:2, Informative)
I think in this case, I'd just head on down to the library and flip through their C++ books until I found one I liked. Or grab a copy of Deitel & Deitel since that seems to be a pretty standard introductory textboo
Re:Speaking of the book's rating on amazon (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, if I hadn't read one, just because it's a standard textbook, I would probably avoid it. I have never yet had an assigned textbook that was worth even a quarter what I paid for it. Both my Java textbooks gathered dust while I studied for classes (no pun intended) out of an OReilly book and th
Great opening. (Score:4, Funny)
No shit, I thought it was the next in the Harry Potter series. My kids are going to be disappointed.
Sorry, it's just that thats the kind of retarded formula-generated opening statement you'd expect from an 8th grader with no interest in the material. Ie; "The Treasure of Pirate Cove is about a treasure in a place called Pirate Cove"
By the way, I love iPods, so mod me up up up!
Re:Great opening. (Score:4, Funny)
Man, talk about "Practical Programming!"
Programming with computers? Bah! (Score:2, Funny)
You youngins and your fancy schmancy computer thingies. Back in my days we didn't have no fancy "computers" and we were grateful! We all did are programming using pseudocode. We never had to deal with memory or speed restrictions! The sky was the limit! Things have gone downhill since they made the switch to those fancy computers. So show some respect, sonny!
Yes sir, those were the good ol' days.
Re:Great opening. (Score:2)
On the whole, far better to be a little obvious than a little obscure.
Debugging (Score:5, Funny)
Rus
Re:Debugging (Score:3, Funny)
putchar('\007');
Re:Debugging (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Debugging (Score:2)
#include <dos.h>
outp(0x61, inp(0x61) ^ 1);
Re:Debugging (Score:2)
Re:Debugging (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Debugging (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually it doesn't always work. On more than one occassion I've seen a bug stop happening when I put in a print statement. Take the print statement out, bug comes back.
This always indicates some kind of memory error, usually an overflow of a local buffer, or a bug in your pointer arithmetic somewhere. By making the call to printf() you are modifying the contents of the stack (by pushing the function arguments) and this changes conditions in such a way that the bug no longer occurs.
It's called a "Heisenbug" :-)
Re:Debugging (Score:2)
Someone told me it was due to the memory addresses and caching or something. I haven't been able to duplicate it except by accident.
Re:Debugging (Score:3, Informative)
Multi-threaded timing (Score:2)
Re:Multi-threaded timing (Score:2)
Visual C++ (and I believe Borland's C++ Builder post v4) support debugging across libraries and processes. Just start your EXE and make sure all the DLLs have debug information, and you can happily put breakpoints into them, step into them, etc. Also works for out-of-process components, although the best there is to run the component in a separate IDE/debugger session.
Re:Multi-threaded timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, use Visual C++? All my apps are split into DLLs. When I'm stepping through something in the debugger, I neither notice nor generally care that I've crossed a DLL boundary. (Except when I'm tracking a memory leak, in which case I notice on purpose...) Most of the time I'm setting a breakpoint deep in the guts of some dll and letting the rest just run until it gets there.
Re:Debugging (Score:3, Insightful)
This always indicates...
In other words, adding printf()'s and observing the resulting behaviour change allowed you narrow down what was going on and eventually fix the bug. Or to put it another way, the printf() debugging worked. So your "doesn't always work" claim isn't supported by this example.
Good point. (Score:2)
On Linux I've had a ton of success using Valgrind [kde.org] to find memory errors. It can identify bad memory reads, writes, uninitialized values, etc. during runtime. Figuring out what is causing those errors is up to you, however. It doesn't substitute for intelligence but it helps narrow the search incredibly.
Re:Debugging (Score:2)
Re:Debugging (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, I never really did find *any* debugging method to keep up with this one application, other than artificially slowing time.
Re:Debugging (Score:2, Funny)
Of course it always works. But since you put print statements everywhere your program probably doesn't do much besides print out the same thing every time you run it ;)
Actually now that I think about it, your program doesn't even compile. You cannot call a print function without first declaring or defining it, but since you used print statements everywhere you obviously haven't defined it.
No wait! Since you use print statements
Re:Debugging (Score:3, Funny)
</sarcasm>
Re:Debugging (Score:2)
Seriously.
When I don't have a console to stdout to, I just use a file.
Re: Debugging (Score:2)
Sweet (Score:3, Funny)
Obvious, ignore (Score:5, Funny)
Teaching the user C++... (Score:5, Informative)
...should, I have decided, always involve the text Accelerated C++, by Koenig and Moo. They have been working with C++ since its inception, down the hall from Stroustrup.
The book takes two relatively new approaches to teaching C++: 1) don't teach C first, and 2) assume that the standard C++ library is there. So, they introduce "Hello, World" using std::string and std::cout, and they keep using std::string without trying to first teach template classes with default template parameters. The resulting intro programs are very clean and simple, easy to follow.
The word "pointer" isn't even mentioned until chapter 9. By that point, they're using strings and vectors to solve useful programs, and since both of those containers manage memory themselves, the user needs to know nothing about dynamic memory management (and thus, pointers) before doing the exercises.
Pointers and user-defined types are introduced, of course, but they don't need to be introduced before showing the reader how to use the basic library features. You don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works before learning how to drive, although going back later and learning what's under the hood will always reward the observant driver.
This approach has gotten rave reviews, and from actual C++ people, not just fluff reviewers. It's the produce of years of teaching C++ courses.
Final note: the book is one of the fantastic "C++ In-Depth" series, of which Stroustrup is the series editor. All are very high quality. One of the series' rules is that the main body of the book can be no more than 300 pages, so "make your point, make it simple, make it clear" rules the day.
they why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, the STL was like putting lipstick on a garbage can. It may look prettier now but I'm still never going to kiss it. It's still something you have to wrangle, bang around and not look at when you don't have to.
Re:they why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt. Go back and read it again.
The idea is that you don't have to learn C before learning C++. That you don't have to learn pointers before learning dynamic expansion of storage. You've conveniently forgotten the last bits.
Nobody ever said anything about not learning these things at all, not learning the entire language. That'd be stupid.
Re:they why bother? (Score:2)
hash_map is still not an official standard. Until it is, STL will remain a joke.
Criticising "Accelerated C++" (Score:2)
In fairness, Accelerated C++ has a lot going for it and does indeed break new ground (after an amazingly long time with an obvious hole in the market, I thought -- shoulda written it myself!) in how C++ is taught. OTOH, I find a lot of the comments about it somewhat annoying. It isn't perfect, far from it.
Basically, it's too trendy. Sure, it covers lots of STL things, but in practice a
Re:Criticising "Accelerated C++" (Score:2)
I disagree that exceptions are more important than templates. Equally important, okay. *grin* (I would point out that exceptions have been done in other languages, while C++'s templates offer things which no other languages' type-parametric features do.) But that's neither here nor there.
I do agree with you about the lack of exception coverage; that
Re:Teaching the user C++... (Score:2)
Re:Teaching the user C++... (Score:2)
How delightful! The length constraint means, from what I've seen at bookstores, that no book describing C++ itself can be part of the series. IMHO this says something about the language.
Re:Teaching the user C++... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is inaccurate. It's more correct to say that a complete reference for C++ cannot be part of the series. Which implies that the series are supposed to be terse tutorial books, not references.
IMHO this says something about the language.
It says that the language has a lot of features and a large library. It also says that textbook authors often ramble a lo
You're right about one thing (Score:2)
Welcome to generic programming.
I don't usually bitch about slashdot "reviews" but (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite diagram is Figure 7-1. "Software life cycle," on page 88; I emphasize with the dinosaur.
Ok, if I own the book, I'm not going to take the time to read this "review". If I don't own the book I obviously have NO FREAKING clue what figure 7-1 looks like! Also, does "Emphasizing with a dinosour" involve time travel and a shitload of highlighters or what? Or does it mean you hire a dinosour to stand next to you for emphasis? I don't get it...
Re:I don't usually bitch about slashdot "reviews" (Score:2, Insightful)
I was also did a double take with this remark:
First, although the book does a good job of covering the important C++ topics of classes, inheritance, and templates, I think it falls a bit short in these areas (especially the coverage of inheritance).
Um
Re:I don't usually bitch about slashdot "reviews" (Score:2)
Re:I don't usually bitch about slashdot "reviews" (Score:2)
I have Practical C Programming by the same author, and it has a Figure 6-1 "The Software Lifecycle" that also uses a dinosaur to represent the software. I won
Secure programming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Secure programming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Secure programming (Score:2)
User input?? (Score:2)
Re:Secure programming (Score:2)
Grab.
ghramor roolez (Score:2, Funny)
As for me...I'm never going to "emphasize" with a dinosaur...I might "empathize" with one (if I met one in a deplorable condition)...who knows?
Now to speak about sentence fragments.
In summary, this review is a good review that really shines in some aspects and falls short in others. With some improvement, it could be a great review. Of course...if you improve anything, it gets better, now doesn't it?
Ac
1st Edition Lacked (Score:5, Informative)
The author did a very nice job on Practical C Programming.
But Steve O. shouldn't have let himself be conned into writing the Practical C++ Programming, though. His C bias weighs too heavily and the first edition spent all kinds of time talking about wonderful linked lists with structs just like the C book did.
If you want to learn C++, my suggestions are:
Re:1st Edition Lacked (Score:2)
I am about to start teaching a C++ class to several co-workers. The 2 of us "professors" will use Accelerated C++ and the Dietels' book. I would only recommend your selections to programmers familiar enough with C++ to be dangerous, but need to gain a deeper understanding of the language.
The first edition ... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that the 2nd edition of this book may have brought forward some previous problems. I have the first edition but never liked it, never thought it really achieved it's goals.
If you're looking for an uncompromisingly amazing first book on C++, please check out Accelerated C++ [acceleratedcpp.com] by Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo. This is how I learned C++ and, by using the concepts of teaching core language skills alongside library concepts and best practices in OOP, it truly accelerates the process. Amazing.
Changes from the first edition ... (Score:3, Funny)
I remember the first edition of Practical C++ Programming. Readers who wished to get something out of that book should've noticed that it was absolutely necessary to debug the book's programming examples first.
Errata? 'Er sure smella like it!
How comprehensive? (Score:3, Funny)
Chapter VII: How to sign up for unemployment benefits.
Don't forget (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't forget (Score:2)
It wasn't iteration, it was tail recursion. :-)
why bother? (Score:2, Funny)
OO Features of C++ (Score:2, Informative)
Also, the terms instantiation, polymorphism and encapsulation are not used in the book.
Seem odd to me that a book that is designed to teach C++ would skimp on the object oriented features of C++. I find polymorphism extremely powerful in many situations. For example, I use it often with bison when writing parsers, and for writing cool Zoo example programs where you call a
I need an OS to program for (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there any good programming books that focus on learning to create GUI's and modern applications? Such as, something that addresses modern concepts like internet connections and DVD drives and database connectivity and such. I don't need to relearn the concepts behind OOP (although a quick overview of syntax would be nice), I want to know how programmers use this stuff, what they create vs. what they have access to (like common dialog boxes), and basically the steps between writing a "sort the list of student records" console app and writing a full-blown application (I know the latter takes a lot of time and code, but I don't know what direction to go in, or how programmers organize all the code).
Re:I need an OS to program for (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern C++ Book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without debating the whether C++ is the best choice for beginners, I wish new books on the subject would stop rehashing the same old concepts and methods - not everyone is a C programmer trying to transition to C++. There are a lot of areas that merit greater attention and that will get beginners started on the right foot - and messing with raw pointers isn't one of them.
On top of trying to get the basic OO mindset accross (yes instantiation, polymorphism and encapsulation are big words but the concepts are essential and not that difficult to explain), I'd like to see some more modern and useful concepts explored in depth. For instance:
Just my $0.02 for potential authors out there.
Re:Modern C++ Book? (Score:2)
Modern C++ Design
Exceptional C++
The Standard Template Library
IOStreams and Locales
Effective C++
I could go on. Sadly though, not nearly as many C++ programmers read this kind of stuff as should.
Sorry but... (Score:2)
Reference Card (Score:4, Informative)
This is a plug for the card, but you can download a PDF of the card for free.
Misinformation card [Was: Re:Reference Card] (Score:3, Informative)
? Not part of Standard C++, which has instead.
The rest of the card doesn't look much better. The reserved words are listed and the card notes that they can't be used as identifiers, but it doesn't mention that there are other reserved identifiers.
The description of while(x) says that x must be an expression, but for a long long time C++ has allowed a variable declaration at this point, and such use is idiomatic.
The example of operator overloading is far from ideal: the argument
Re:Misinformation card [Was: Re:Reference Card] (Score:2)
My guess is that if someone can identify that an example is less than optimal, than they dont need this card.
I've managed to cram a lot of information onto this card, more than is taught in some college programming courses. If I were to add m
So It Goes (Score:3, Insightful)
Great advice. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is something that novice programmers are well advised to listen to. I constantly am asked by junior programmers 'What happens when I do x', where x is something simple, like try to print out an array.
Half the time, the problem can be answered by simply trying it. And the other half of the time, you end up with a better question (I want to print out the values of an array, but print @array didn't work. What's the trick?) (In perl, see 'perldoc -f join'. That's not my point, but I don't want to leave you hanging!)
And even better, learning the value of experimentation makes you a better programmer, and a much more pleasant junior employee. Instead of spending all your time asking a series of questions, you try a whole bunch of things. By actually stopping to think about the problem, which this approach forces you to do, you end up learning a lot more, and sometimes the failed efforts are exactly what you need later. And if you're stumped, you still end up looking smarter, because you at least tried some approaches. And more often than not, it's easier to learn the answer if you've taken the time to struggle with and really learn the problem you're trying to solve, and remember the answer next time.
I think this is one of the unheralded keys to becoming a good professional programmer.
Caveat: This works a lot better in some development environments than others. I do most of my work in perl, which is ideally suited to this rapid prototype approach. In environments with long compile times, it's more tedious. This is thankfully decreasingly true, with faster machines making the hours-long compiles a historical problem, so take advantage of it, learn to experiment, and reap the rewards.
Re:Great advice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Half the time, the problem can be answered by simply trying it. And the other half of the time, you end up with a better question...
Unfortunately, C++ is complex, and undefined behavior will upset most attempts at experimentation. For example, suppose a beginning C++ programmer wants to change a string's contents so it contains the text "Count is $count" (Perl-ish code). Most of the time they try stuff like:
int count =
string s =
sprintf( &s[0], "Count is %d", count );
sprintf( (char*)s.c_str(), "Count is %d", count );
Does that work? Well, maybe, but the code's not guaranteed to work, and it's dangerous. But the problems with the code will not be recognized by the beginner, and therefore experimentation can lead him to assume something is correct even when it is not. The generally accepted answer of
ostringstream oss;
oss << "Count is " << count;
string s = oss.str();
is not likely to be discovered through experimentation.
In general, I agree that experimentation is good. C++ just isn't a safe environment and makes trial-and-error programming difficult.
What's Cheaper & Where (why just B&N and A (Score:3, Informative)
Think of this as a book equivalent to PriceWatch [pricewatch.com]
(these links were tested in 'preview' mode before posting.
BookPool [bookpool.com]
AddAll [addall.com]
BestBookBuys [www.bestbookbuys]
Another One? (Score:3, Interesting)
More power to 'em, I guess. It just seems to me that the language has been around for awhile, has aged gracefully, and has an entire library's worth of books written for it.
I suppose it's good to update every once in awhile, but this book doesn't seem to have anything new (based on the review). I'll stick to the 4 or 5 I have, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Oulline (Score:2, Interesting)
But I happen to have his "Practical C Programming", and i discovered after the fact that it gets lots of thumbs down from both comp.lang.c and #c on freenode.
I've also got some personal beefs with it, in that there are many places where it is either implied or specifically stated that C is merely a stepping stone to C++.
"Get into the habit of pre-fixing your increments and decrements (i.e. ++i, --i, as oppos
Re:Steve Oulline (Score:2)
As a C++ programmer, this doesn't make sense to me. C++ supports both prefix and postfix operators. Any idea what the author was talking about?
Re:Steve Oulline (Score:2)
Just the fact that the prefix operators don't require a temp variable; so if you just need the side effect, use prefix.
BTW, you don't have to do this, but it's just about idomatic for C++.
BWP
The Third Edition (Score:2, Funny)
...and in the next edition, the book will have the additional goals of 5) Introduce the reader to US Copyright law 6) How to stay out of prison after violating the DMCA and 7) Learn how to pick the best copyright lawyer
"Occasional misleading statements" (Score:2)
there are occasional misleading statements that a beginner probably won't recognize as such.
Even one example would have greatly bolstered the reviewer's argument here.
When no examples are given, we do not have any idea in what way the author is "misleading," on which topics the author is liable to slip, or how serious the problem is.
Full of bad code (Score:3, Funny)
Can you believe that this kind of code could make it in here? It's the kind of thing that developers would call "ugly."
no real errors in the book (Score:3, Funny)
but earlier you said
"4) The author encourages the reader to use a computer to enter, run and debug the book's programming examples"
Everyone that's ever had a programming class knows all of those errors were intentionaly put there to test you. At least that's what my profs always told me when they gave the class buggy code.
Review critique, book critique (Score:2, Informative)
1. Where's the basic information about this book? Author, publisher, ISBN, list price, etc. None of these are mentioned in the review (yes, there's a link to B&N, but, c'mon).
2. Sequencing is an essential aspect of a technical book review. In what order does the author address the topics? Are there many forward references? Does the author march through the topics one at a time or is the subject matter gradually explored, step-wise? A Table of Contents listing (instead of
Re:ObOldeQuote (Score:2, Funny)
I'm a retard.
Re:C++ bad (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesnt, it allows you more abstractions that you an use as tools, if they're appropriate. When they're overused or used inappropriately, they detract.
It's like my neighbour who recently bough one of those power spray painter things. He runs around power-painting everything from lawnchairs to his fence - with often terrible results. But he's a guy with a new tool and wants to use it as often as possible, even though it's really only suitable to use in certain niche applications.
Or closer to home, observe the student who just learns recursive techniques. They want to write everything recursively - though it's rarely the best solution and just makes for obscure code. They ubiquitously teach it using factorial as an example, when a for loop is a much better tool.
Such is the way with C++. Not every solution is conducive to an object oriented approach, but it's worth having the tools for the ones that do. The ability to mix and match in large projects is a boon.
If you cant pick the right tools for the right job, then you're a poor craftsman.
Re:C++ bad (Score:3, Funny)
asm (Score:2)
RAM_START equ $80 ; yes this is code but here is some padding but here is some padding
CODE_START equ $8000 ; yes this is code but here is some padding but here is some padding
rsset RAM_START ; yes this is code but here is some padding but here is some padding
val1low rb 1 ; yes this is code but here is some padding but here is some padding
val1high rb 1 ; yes this is code but here is some padding but here is some padding
val2 r
Re:C++ bad (Score:2, Interesting)
In my experience I'd say more than 50% of all tool users use them for fun/kicks, not because they have a pressing task to do with th
Re:C++ bad (Score:2, Insightful)
But that's the thing - it's too easy to misuse C++'s features. YES, a well-trained, experienced C++ programmer can work wonders, BUT that's like 1% or less of the programming population!
C++ made a lot of design tradeoffs (e.g. it does not automatically handle allocated space well without extreme programmer care) connected to computer technology EONs ago. It's a really weird
Re:C++ bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:C++ bad (Score:5, Insightful)
What C++ (and other OO languages) give you is an abstraction which may make your solution easier to design/code. If this abstraction doesn't match the needs of your problem, use a different one. C++ and other OO languages are perfect for GUI-type stuff, but they suck big-time for writing embedded software. The best hammer is a damn poor screwdriver, and all that.
If you insist on only using C for GUI applications, good luck - I did some substantial GUI work in X (X11R5) using C about 10 years ago, and trying to use C to emulate object-orientation is one of the abiding horrors in my memory. Equally we had a uni project to design a real-time position controller using C++, and I'm scarred by those memories too.
What sets the computing industry back is some twonk assuming that a particular methodology (structured design, OO, etc) is a magic bullet. That sucks, bcos it isn't. What also sets the industry back is some other twonk acting Luddite and saying "the old way is the One True Way" (*cough*).
Grab.
Re:C++ bad (Score:2)
You make it sound silly, but I've heard roughly that sentiment from C++ advocates. I describe what I'm working on in C, and they say, "sounds like a job for C++." Why? "Because the problem space you describe has objects and inheritance."
What they miss, which grandparent was trying to express, is that the "objects and inheritance" part of th
Re:C++ bad, Here, Here! (Score:2)
Re:C++ bad (Score:2)
Re:C++ bad (Score:2)
Programming in C or scripting language is all fine and dandy, but if you're writing a commercial application with a full blown UI, you really can't beat utilizing a C++ UI framework, whether it's MFC for Windows or PowerPlant for the Macintosh. C++ has its place in the world, and so does C (and Java, and Python, etc.).
C++ encourages you to avoid solving the problem by trying to
Re:C++ bad-Villians. (Score:2)
Damn! I thought it was Microsoft. Guess I lost that bet.
Both!
It's time to party like it's 1983!
C was the sweet spot (Score:2)
The entire journey into OO with java and C++ will probably be regarded as a bizarre and pointless fad by future programmers.
Re:Offtopic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:zuh? (Score:2)
Also, I only use dictionary.reference.com when I don't have access to dictionary.oed.com
Re:Beginners start with C before or going to C++? (Score:2)
General concensus is that you don't need to (and shouldn't) learn C first if C++ is your ultimate goal. By all means learn C if you want to use C, but if you want to use C++ then just go straight there.
For somewhat more detailed arguments, have a read of Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ [att.com]...