Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: alfps@xxxxxxxx (Alf P. Steinbach)
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:30:42 GMT
* Phlip:
> * Alf P. Steinbach:
>
> > So I think the question really is, why recommend a book based on C?
> >
> > Because it's the best book there is on the GUI side of the Windows API.
> > The use of C in the book is in a sense good because the details are exposed,
> > which is what you need for understanding. It is however the opposite of
> > what you want in real applications, where the details just complicate.
> >
> >
> > > The OP thinks that learning OO will be hard, and required for windows.
> > > OO will make a wrapper library easy to learn for windows.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> To avoid "learning" OO, the OP should also avoid the low-level "C style"
> stuff that simulates OO without direct language support. That's even worse!
You're not making sense to me.
But then, I tend to not think emotionally. ;-)
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Phlip
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- References:
- Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Snooze
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Alf P. Steinbach
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Phlip
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Alf P. Steinbach
- Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- From: Phlip
- Windows Procedural Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- Next by Date: Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- Previous by thread: Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Windows Procedural Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|