Re: Best book on learning C++?
From: Paul F. Johnson (paul_at_all-the-johnsons.co.uk)
Date: 12/15/03
- Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: [C++] Vector - guaranteed to be contiguous?"
- Previous message: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- In reply to: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Next in thread: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Reply: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:42:05 +0000
Hi,
By the process of certain things happening, jeffc managed to say...
> "Paul F. Johnson" <paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.12.13.14.33.05.402052@all-the-johnsons.co.uk...
>>
>> Anything means that. If you're trying to say that a book on C++ reviewed
>> in 1991 is a good basis for what you're saying, then perhaps it is more
>> just an exception to prove a point.. now, let's look...
<snip Herb's dreadful list>
> More disinformation by Paul.
Rubbish. It's not disinformation, unless the information on the ACCU
website is wrong.
> Yes, LET'S take a closer look at that list.
Okay.
> Out of the 26 books you listed, only half of them actually have the
> recommendation specified right there in the entry.
Correct. The others may be okay, but aren't really this way or that. If a
reviewer recommends a rating, then usually, the rating is given.
> For the other half, you
> have to actually read the reviews, which you obviously didn't do since you
> think none were recommended.
Proof? Got none. Oh well, just say you have for the fun of it...
> Let's take a look at the first one that has no
> recommendation specified - "Turbo C/C++: The Complete Reference". In the
> review conclusion, it says "If you are new to programming this is the book
> to get. It is a complete reference."
Yep. Missed point. Book written in what year? 1993. Oh great. A book based
on a pre-standardised language. Fills me so full of confidence 10 years
on... I wouldn't trust anything pre standardisation for C++ (and in quite
a number of examples *post* due to authors (like Schildt) who bung in some
C++ bits to cover up what is effectively a C book)
> Now the next, "C/C++ Programmer's Reference".
Not recommended. Someone as well respected as Francis Glassborow has
deemed it a danger to shipping. I think I'll skip it. You see, I happen to
trust the reviewers on there as they know what they're talking about.
> Next, "ANSI C Made Easy". "I would have no hesitation in recommending
> this book to the newcomer to the language..."
Actually looks a pretty neutral book. Schildt does have a very good
writing style which appeals to a lot of newbies on the block, problem is
the technical merit ain't up to it.
> Next, "C++ Nuts & Bolts for Experienced Programmers".
Yes
"Unfortunately the book fails to comment on templates and the STL. This is
the only thing that lets it down"
So much for it being "advanced c++"
> I won't read anymore because I only needed one counterexample to prove
> you're wrong, again. But at least *I* read *some*!
Yep, you have. So have I. So have a lot of people. Your point is far from
proven, 3/10
TTFN
Paul
-- One OS to fool them all One browser to find them One email client to bring them all And through security holes, blind them...
- Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: [C++] Vector - guaranteed to be contiguous?"
- Previous message: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- In reply to: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Next in thread: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Reply: jeffc: "Re: Best book on learning C++?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|