Learning C online?

[Zach]

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

Is this a good site:
http://www.space.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/cref.html

Zach

 

[Ian Collins]

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

This question is asked here often, even this week. Search through the
archives for 'tutorial'

 

[jacob navia]

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

Is this a good site:
http://www.space.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/cref.html

Zach

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

 

[Richard]

This question is asked here often, even this week. Search through the
archives for 'tutorial'

So are 99% of the questions. What is your point?

 

[Zach]

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Hi Jacob,

I use a Linux OS.

Zach

 

[WANG Cong]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700，Zach wrote：

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Zach said:

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

Is this a good site:
http://www.space.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/cref.html

No, it isn't.

If you'd like a list of reasons, let me know. If you'd rather save time and
just have the answer to your original question, check these out:

Steve Summit's excellent, and rather gentle, tutorial can be found at
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/>; the serious C student will benefit
most from this tutorial if he or she has a copy of "The C Programming
Language", 2nd edition, by Kernighan and Ritchie. Tom Torfs takes a rather
more austere approach; this doesn't suit everybody, but many people have
found it extremely helpful. His tutorial can be found at
<http://cprog.tomsweb.net/cintro.html>.

Essential reference: "The C Programming Language", 2nd Ed. Kernighan &
Ritchie. Prentice Hall, 1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or
0-13-110370-9 (hardback) - will pay for itself many times over during the
course of your programming career.

 

[santosh]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700?Zach wrote?


I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even harder
than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

 

[santosh]

Hi Jacob,

I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

<http://www.winehq.org/>

 

[Richard Bos]

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

 

[santosh]

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines,
whether you should take that risk.

Yes well, I just mentioned the possibility, no value judgements either
way. That's up to the OP.

 

[jacob navia]

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

You are just telling lies.

You are then, a liar.

 

[Richard]

This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even harder
than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

Sometimes you astonish me Santosh :-;

It seems only the past couple of days we argued about Knuth's
suitability for a new programmer ... No. It can't have happened.

 

[Richard]

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

What do you mean? Or are you on Jacob's case too now? Why would you
slander him and his work? Do you provide a free compiler?

 

[jacob navia]

What do you mean? Or are you on Jacob's case too now? Why would you
slander him and his work? Do you provide a free compiler?

Look,

In "the other thread" several people started saying that
"they do not need a debugger", or that "they debug without a debugger".

I think that those are just "war stories" that they tell us in this
group since they can't be verified. Then, I said that I doubt that
anyone can DEBUG code that he/she has NOT seen/written/used when the
code size exceeds 2000 lines without a debugger.

THAT has been translated by this liar into:

"Jacob can't read code beyond 2000 lines"

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

You are just telling lies.

"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<[email protected]>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.

You are then, a liar.

Richard Bos and I don't always see eye to eye (in fact, I believe I'm in
his killfile), but he strikes me as being an honorable man, and he is most
certainly *not* a liar. You owe him an apology. But don't you worry about
that - just add it to the (rather high and unstable) pile.

 

[Richard Bos]

You are just telling lies.

You are then, a liar.

Leet me quote your very own words:
# It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
# without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
# (bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)

If you can read code, you can debug it. If you cannot debug code without
a debugger, you cannot truly be said to be capable of reading it.
Glancing at it, perhaps. Browsing it. But reading implies the text going
through the brain as well as the eyes.

So now you call me a liar? If I were you, I'd check the slander laws in
your country.

Richard

 

[Richard]

jacob navia said:


"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<[email protected]>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.

It's perfectly easy to see how he is misrepresenting him. Reading code
is NOT the same as debugging code. The fact that I agree with Jacob for
pretty much all but the most trivial code is not the point. The point is
that Jacob was talking about debugging largish programs - not reading
the code.

In fact from this discussion I would trust Jacob more that Richard since
he believes in using the right tools for the job rather than some
reliance on "reading the code" or doing the awful printf and assert
approach which leads to heisenbugs.

Richard Bos and I don't always see eye to eye (in fact, I believe I'm in
his killfile), but he strikes me as being an honorable man, and he is most
certainly *not* a liar. You owe him an apology. But don't you worry about
that - just add it to the (rather high and unstable) pile.

No he doesn't. Who appointed you judge and jury? Richard is the man
making allegations about Jacob being "incapable" of reading code. This
was a lie. Pure and simple.

So, maybe YOU should apologise?

Where do you get off slandering Jacob all the time? Amazing.

 

[Richard]

Look,

In "the other thread" several people started saying that
"they do not need a debugger", or that "they debug without a debugger".

I think that those are just "war stories" that they tell us in this
group since they can't be verified. Then, I said that I doubt that
anyone can DEBUG code that he/she has NOT seen/written/used when the
code size exceeds 2000 lines without a debugger.

THAT has been translated by this liar into:

"Jacob can't read code beyond 2000 lines"

No. I saw. Bos appears to be another arrogant clc prick with delusions
of grandeur. Killfile him. He's clearly got an agenda to lie and smear
your name for some reason - at least it's very apparent from his
slanderous claims about your code reading ability.

 

[Richard]

Leet me quote your very own words:
# It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
# without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
# (bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)

If you can read code, you can debug it. If you cannot debug code
without

Yes you can. With a debugger. or in your head - SOMETIMES.

a debugger, you cannot truly be said to be capable of reading it.
Garbage.

Glancing at it, perhaps. Browsing it. But reading implies the text going
through the brain as well as the eyes.

Ye gods, you're an arrogant arse. So if I give you a printout of say
300,000 lines of C, are you telling me you can "read it" and point out
all thebugs? No. You could not. Even the mighty you.

So now you call me a liar? If I were you, I'd check the slander laws in
your country.

You appear to by lying or twisting the truth in order to slander Jacob
and his product. Why is this?

There is NO equivalence between reading code and debugging it.

None whatsoever. Equivalence that is. Reading does not mean
simultaneous debugging.

Clearly you need to be able to read code to debug it. But reading code
does not mean you are able debug it properly without other tools.