Please Help ----------Free Downloadable Ebooks for C & C++ Language needed

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

That may be partly because of your lack of quoting. Another
possibility is that you are being ignored because of posting from
that execresence of a usenet interface named google.

However I don't believe that Jacobs offering is that bad.

Have you read the whole thing? I haven't, so I'd be interested to hear your
opinion if you have.

Richards criticisms were relatively minor.

Yes, but that may be because I listed the first six I happened to notice,
and stopped there. Once he's fixed those, and if I remember, I'll list the
next six, and so on. I have no idea how serious the remaining problems are,
because I haven't read that far - but based on his contributions to this
newsgroup I can only guess that they are many and major.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

CBFalconer said:




Have you read the whole thing? I haven't, so I'd be interested to hear your
opinion if you have.




Yes, but that may be because I listed the first six I happened to notice,
and stopped there. Once he's fixed those, and if I remember, I'll list the
next six, and so on. I have no idea how serious the remaining problems are,
because I haven't read that far - but based on his contributions to this
newsgroup I can only guess that they are many and major.

I am glad you do not like my work.

What a shame if you would approve it!!!

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

I am glad you do not like my work.

I didn't say I didn't like it. I just said it has problems. If you fix the
problems - all of them - maybe you'll have something worth offering to
people.

What a shame if you would approve it!!!

Why? Would you rather be the author of a bad tutorial than a good one? I
cannot believe that's what you actually mean, so I can only guess that we
are failing to communicate effectively because of a language barrier.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

jacob navia said:


I cannot believe that's what you actually mean, so I can only guess that we
are failing to communicate effectively because of a language barrier.

Or perhaps you're both now so into being ironic and sarcastic to each
other, that you've forgotten that its better to remain silent and be
thought a fool by one, than to speak and prove it to all?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Or perhaps you're both now so into being ironic and sarcastic to each
other, that you've forgotten that its better to remain silent and be
thought a fool by one, than to speak and prove it to all?

<shrug> If Mr Navia - or anyone else - posts something incorrect about C
here, he can expect to be corrected. It may be that I post a correction, or
it may be that someone else does, but the chances are high that a
correction *will* be posted. So how do bright people deal with being
corrected?

It seems to me that there are three basic classes of response to a
correction: the correctee can attempt to show that the "correction" is
incorrect, and in the event that they succeed, and if I was the one
responsible, I will post an apology (my track record demonstrates this to
be true); or they can accept the correction, either explicitly or
implicitly; or they can just rail against the one correcting them. The
first two options are how bright people react (and, if they choose to
attempt a defence and end up failing to make their point, they are
generally wise enough to realise this and to say so). Those who choose the
last of these three options, however, are inevitably going to make fools of
themselves. That is not my doing, but theirs.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Neil]

hi friends,
i am not new to C language but also i am not an expert at it.
i want some free downloadable links for ebooks on C-language.if anybody
has ebook in pdf format
of C-complete reference please provide me.i would be very grateful.
i want to learn more about data structures in C , file operations ,
hardware interaction through C.

please help me .

also i need some good e-books on C++.i am a beginner to it

thank you

You can try ebay, not exactly free, but you will be surprised what you
get for so little.
I bought a few books already from a guy in New York, for the price of a
hotdog and pop.
for each, I was surprised too!!..ebooks are great.

-Neil

 

[Neil]

hi friends,
i am not new to C language but also i am not an expert at it.
i want some free downloadable links for ebooks on C-language.if anybody
has ebook in pdf format
of C-complete reference please provide me.i would be very grateful.
i want to learn more about data structures in C , file operations ,
hardware interaction through C.

please help me .

also i need some good e-books on C++.i am a beginner to it

thank you

You can try ebay, not exactly free, but you will be surprised what you
get for so little.
I bought a few books already from a guy in New York, for the price of a
hotdog and pop.
for each, I was surprised too!!..ebooks are great.

-Neil

 

[Mark McIntyre]

<shrug> If Mr Navia - or anyone else - posts something incorrect about C
here, he can expect to be corrected. It may be that I post a correction, or
it may be that someone else does, but the chances are high that a
correction *will* be posted. So how do bright people deal with being
corrected?

True but disingenuous. You were not posting a correction to anything
about C, and nor was he, you were carrying on a silly private spat.
With both you and Jacob in my mind, I recall that there's a word for
people who try to divert attention from their mistakes by accusing
others or by changing the topic, and its not a nice one.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

True but disingenuous. You were not posting a correction to anything
about C,

Wrong. Again. Re-read the thread, this time taking note of the actual words.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre said:


Wrong. Again. Re-read the thread, this time taking note of the actual words.

Ok, Here's something you (Richard) wrote upthread:
| Yes, but that may be because I listed the first six I happened to notice,
| and stopped there. Once he's fixed those, and if I remember, I'll list the
| next six, and so on. I have no idea how serious the remaining problems are,
| because I haven't read that far - but based on his contributions to this
| newsgroup I can only guess that they are many and major.

The six errors you pointed out were legitimate criticisms. The last
remark "based on his contributions to this newsgroup" is, in my
opinion, substantially less constructive.

Since, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining unresolved
technical issues in this thread, I suggest dropping it.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip discussion of Richard Heathfields posts ...

The six errors you pointed out were legitimate criticisms. The
last remark "based on his contributions to this newsgroup" is,
in my opinion, substantially less constructive.

How else should one judge the general validity and accuracy of a
contributor?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

The six errors you pointed out were legitimate criticisms.

Quite so. I don't make unfounded criticisms (or at least, if I do so
unwittingly, I apologise for them when I become aware that I have done so).
I wish my critics would take a similar line.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


Wrong. Again. Re-read the thread, this time taking note of the actual words.

I already read it. You posted something. Jacob (probably accidentally)
misinterpreted it. You made sarcastic and gratuitous response. So did
he. In short, you both behaved like five year olds fighting over a
broken rattle. To make it worse, you seem to think you're invariably
in the right, and get on your high and pompous horse whenever anyone
suggest you may have been mistaken.

At your age you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know you embarrass
me.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Quite so. I don't make unfounded criticisms (or at least, if I do so
unwittingly, I apologise for them when I become aware that I have done so).

If either part of this were true, I'd have far fewer reasons to butt
into your mudslinging sessions with jacob.

I wish my critics would take a similar line.

Try being slightly less holier-than-thou, and you may find people more
inclined to do so.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson said:



Quite so. I don't make unfounded criticisms (or at least, if I do
so unwittingly, I apologise for them when I become aware that I
have done so). I wish my critics would take a similar line.

Returning to the subject (Jasons tutorial), I have skimmed the
first 25 or so pages of it, and don't find too much to quibble
with. Its insularity shows. The most glaring omission (so far) is
the lack of reference to getc and putc in the summary of file
operations. It will not replace K&R2.

His entrance page states unequivocally that LCC-WIN32 functions
under W95 up. This is not so. It aborts (as least as of a few
years ago) under W98 when running a '486 cpu, by using an invalid
opcode. At the time he was unable to find the problem.

Back to the tutorial, I find its major lack is that he fails to
emphasize what is and is not standard. This is probably due to
lack of knowledge of the standard. He also fails to discriminate
between C90 and C99, as in references to <stdbool.h>. He also
fails to note the three forms of char, plain, signed, and unsigned.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

I already read it. You posted something.

Yes, a brief critique of Mr Navia's C tutorial, pointing out the first six
errors I happened to find. That is about C, is it not?

Jacob (probably accidentally) misinterpreted it.

That's his problem, not mine.

To make it worse, you seem to think you're invariably
in the right, and get on your high and pompous horse whenever anyone
suggest you may have been mistaken.

You seem to have a short memory. I am very willing for my mistakes to be
pointed out, and I am accustomed to admitting error when I make errors, and
apologising to those concerned if I have reason to believe I may have
misled anyone by that error.

At your age you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know you embarrass
me.

Then I suggest you stop reading my articles. You misinterpret them so often
that they don't seem to do you any good, and your misguided replies to them
sometimes require lengthy debunking, so it might be less work for both of
us if you were to filter them out completely. But of course that's
completely up to you.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

If either part of this were true, I'd have far fewer reasons to butt
into your mudslinging sessions with jacob.

Not only are both parts true, but furthermore I am not interested in
mudslinging. I am, however, interested in communicating what is, and what
is not, good, portable, standard C. The reason I disagree with Mr Navia so
much is not that I don't like him, or that I don't like his product, but
simply that he's wrong so much. If Mr Navia wants me to stop criticising
what he writes, the answer is simple: to stop making mistakes. Now, I know
we all make mistakes, and I'm not claiming I never do. But when I make
mistakes, people criticise me, and SO THEY SHOULD! All I am saying is that
Mr Navia is not immune from this process just because he makes more
mistakes than average.

Try being slightly less holier-than-thou, and you may find people more
inclined to do so.

You mean, try being wrong more often? Sorry, but that's not a price I'm
prepared to pay.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[CBFalconer]

Returning to the subject (Jasons tutorial), I have skimmed the
first 25 or so pages of it, and don't find too much to quibble
with. Its insularity shows. The most glaring omission (so far) is
the lack of reference to getc and putc in the summary of file
operations. It will not replace K&R2.

Skimming further, on P91 I find:

int compare( const void *arg1, const void *arg2 )
{
/* Compare both integers */
return ( * ( int * ) arg1 - * ( int * ) arg2 );
}

as a routine to be passed to qsort. This is in serious error. He
makes the tyros mistake of ignoring the possibility of overflow.
The casts also lose the const attribute, and should trigger a
warning. An appropriate function would be:

int compare(const void *arg1, const void *arg2)
{
const int *left = arg1, *right = arg2;

/* Compare both integers */
return ((*left > *right) - (*left < *right));
}

A further general criticism is his habit of using // comments
everywhere. These are not valid in C90. The tutorial is supposed
to be about C, not about lcc-win32.

Going slightly further, on p96 he promotes references, and leaves
the fact that they do not exist in C for an easily missed
footnote. Any extensions should be relegated to an 'extensions'
section, and not allowed to confuse the poor reader.

 

[jacob navia]

CBFalconer a écrit :Thanks Chuck. Will add that.

Skimming further, on P91 I find:

int compare( const void *arg1, const void *arg2 )
{
/* Compare both integers */
return ( * ( int * ) arg1 - * ( int * ) arg2 );
}

as a routine to be passed to qsort. This is in serious error. He
makes the tyros mistake of ignoring the possibility of overflow.

lcc-win32 allows you to detect overflow with a command line option.
But your criticism is valid

The casts also lose the const attribute, and should trigger a
warning. An appropriate function would be:

int compare(const void *arg1, const void *arg2)
{
const int *left = arg1, *right = arg2;

/* Compare both integers */
return ((*left > *right) - (*left < *right));
}

A further general criticism is his habit of using // comments
everywhere. These are not valid in C90. The tutorial is supposed
to be about C, not about lcc-win32.

I use the current C standard.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

CBFalconer a écrit :


I use the current C standard.

Does this amount to a claim that lcc-win32 is C99-conforming?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.