Re: Opinions about a book

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Robert Gamble, May 5, 2008.

  1. On May 4, 4:19 pm, nembo kid <nembo@kid> wrote:
    > What do you think about the following book:
    >
    > C How to Program, 5/E
    > (Harvey & Paul) Deitel & Associates, Inc.
    >
    > <http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,3110,01324...>
    >
    > Thanks in advance.


    Deitel has some fine programming books, their Java How to Program (7th
    ed) is excellent, however they don't seem to have done as well with
    their C books. For me the text can be overly verbose and contrived,
    the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
    and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
    $100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
    interested in, and if I was interested in these things there are books
    dedicated to the topics that provide a much better treatment. I would
    suggest you check out C Programming: A Modern Approach 2nd Edition
    <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393979504/knking> which just
    came out, focuses completely on C and is a fair bit cheaper than
    Deitel's offering.

    --
    Robert Gamble
    Robert Gamble, May 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Gamble

    Guest

    Robert Gamble <> wrote:
    >
    > the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
    > and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
    > $100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
    > interested in


    Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    in, is cursory at best.

    -- Larry Jones

    Everybody's a slave to routine. -- Calvin
    , May 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Gamble

    Nick Bowler Guest

    On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:00:26 +0500, arnuld wrote:

    <snip>

    > Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant. That's good
    > thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :p


    No, const doesn't do this in C99. However, variable length arrays allow
    you to use non-constant expressions in automatic array declarations.
    Nick Bowler, May 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Robert Gamble

    cr88192 Guest

    "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > said:
    >
    >> Robert Gamble <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
    >>> and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
    >>> $100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
    >>> interested in

    >>
    >> Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    >> in, is cursory at best.

    >
    > Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
    >


    long long and _Complex, of course...


    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    cr88192, May 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Robert Gamble

    Ian Collins Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >> Robert Gamble <> wrote:
    >>> the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
    >>> and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
    >>> $100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
    >>> interested in

    >> Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    >> in, is cursory at best.

    >
    > Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
    >

    Some of us use it and sad as it may sound, are interesting in it.

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, May 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Robert Gamble

    Ian Collins Guest

    Ian Collins wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> said:
    >>
    >>> Robert Gamble <> wrote:
    >>>> the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
    >>>> and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
    >>>> $100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
    >>>> interested in
    >>> Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    >>> in, is cursory at best.

    >> Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
    >>

    > Some of us use it and sad as it may sound, are interesting in it.
    >

    interested..

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, May 5, 2008
    #6
  7. Robert Gamble

    jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99 (which I
    > don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't explain why they
    > *should* be.
    >


    Because is standard C. And your fight against it has failed. It is the
    standard and you will not be able to change that fact.

    You are the one that always complains about my compiler system being
    "nonstandard" but you are the one the fights the standard as much as you
    can.



    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
    jacob navia, May 5, 2008
    #7
  8. arnuld wrote:
    >> On Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:49 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    >
    >> Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?

    >
    >
    > I think it is a good idea to have this:
    >
    > for( int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
    >
    >
    > rather than this:
    >
    > int i;
    >
    > for( i = 0;, i != N; ++i )
    >
    >
    > that way, i is localized. It is a very good idea if i exists primarily for
    > for loop. It will not pollute the the other namespaces.


    {
    int i;
    for (i = 0; i != N; ++i) /* nothing */ ;
    }

    "is localized" and "will not pollute the other namespaces".
    I suppose that by now all current compilers get the duration of i in
    for (int i = 0; i != N; ++i) /* nothing */ ;
    right, but it wasn't always so. And it is not the same as in the block
    version.

    > Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant.


    Well, you recall incorrectly.

    > That's good
    > thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :p


    If you depend on something that isn't true, it's _not_ a good thing.
    Martin Ambuhl, May 5, 2008
    #8
  9. Robert Gamble

    Flash Gordon Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 08:53:
    > jacob navia said:
    >
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
    >>> (which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
    >>> explain why they *should* be.
    >>>

    >> Because is standard C.

    >
    > This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.


    <snip>

    So that they can write code that will be portable to C99 implementations
    rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
    knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
    subset without knowing a bit about C99.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Flash Gordon, May 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Robert Gamble

    Flash Gordon Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 11:26:
    > Flash Gordon said:
    >
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 08:53:
    >>> jacob navia said:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>>>> Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
    >>>>> (which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
    >>>>> explain why they *should* be.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Because is standard C.
    >>> This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.

    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> So that they can write code that will be portable to C99 implementations

    >
    > Name six. :)


    Fred, Jim, Sheila, Jenny, George, and Matilda.

    Well, you asked me to name them, not tell you what names they already
    had ;-)

    >> rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
    >> knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
    >> subset without knowing a bit about C99.

    >
    > Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.


    You want to maximise portability? There are, after all, a few C99
    implementations, and one day gcc might join those ranks.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Not holding my breath.
    Flash Gordon, May 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Robert Gamble

    arnuld Guest

    > On Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:49 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    > Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?



    I think it is a good idea to have this:

    for( int i = 0; i != N; ++i)


    rather than this:

    int i;

    for( i = 0;, i != N; ++i )


    that way, i is localized. It is a very good idea if i exists primarily for
    for loop. It will not pollute the the other namespaces.


    Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant. That's good
    thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :p





    --
    http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
    my email ID is @ the above address
    arnuld, May 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > Mark McIntyre said:
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:

    [...]
    >>> Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
    >>> it?


    [...]

    >> and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
    >> subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to tools
    >> supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.

    >
    > And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get it.


    Um, in what way is the question of whether or not C99 is interesting
    to most people interesting to *anyone*?

    (Hyperbole alert: I'm sure that some people are interested in the
    subject, just not enough to justify such a long thread.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, May 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Robert Gamble

    Guest

    In article <>,
    Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:


    >> Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    >> in, is cursory at best.

    >
    >Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?


    If enough C programmers become interested in C99, the people
    responsible for the widely-used implementations might decide it's worth
    supporting the whole standard instead of just the parts that are
    convenient for them, which will make it rather more widely available
    (and therefore rather more interesting) than it is now.


    dave

    --
    Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com
    It's not 'lusing' when it works very well. Contemptible, maybe, but
    not 'lusing'.
    --Lionel in the scary devil monastery
    , May 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Robert Gamble

    Guest

    Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >
    > I'm not actually interested in whether C99 is interesting to most people.
    > What interests me is Larry's reasoning for his claim that most people
    > should be interested in C99. He seems reluctant to explain this (or he's
    > enjoying a long weekend).


    Other people have already said everything I would have said...

    > I'm surprised by the quality, as well as the quantity, of the responses.


    and done so better than I would have. :)

    -- Larry Jones

    I think my cerebellum just fused. -- Calvin
    , May 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Robert Gamble

    Guest

    In article <>,
    Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >>> said:

    >>
    >>>> Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
    >>>> in, is cursory at best.
    >>>
    >>>Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?

    >>
    >> If enough C programmers become interested in C99, the people
    >> responsible for the widely-used implementations might decide it's worth
    >> supporting the whole standard instead of just the parts that are
    >> convenient for them, which will make it rather more widely available
    >> (and therefore rather more interesting) than it is now.

    >
    >Best answer yet - well done. But I detect a hint of circularity. You seem
    >to be saying that people should be interested in C99 because being so will
    >increase its intrinsic interest. In other words, it isn't interesting
    >*yet*, but might become so eventually if we all pretend for long enough.


    Well, yes, that's the difference between "most people should be
    interested in it" and "it is interesting".
    It's more a bootstrapping problem than a circularity in the argument.


    dave

    --
    Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com
    And the people around you will judge your reasons, and they _should_. (They
    should, of course, make reasonable evaluations rather than stupid ones.)
    --Alan J Rosenthal in the scary devil monastery
    , May 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Robert Gamble

    arnuld Guest

    > On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:10:14 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

    > Because is standard C. And your fight against it has failed.



    I really did not understand what *exactly* you mean by stating this.



    --
    http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
    my email ID is @ the above blog.
    just check the "About Myself" page :)
    arnuld, May 6, 2008
    #16
  17. Robert Gamble

    arnuld Guest

    > On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:27:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    > If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I don't
    > have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do most people. In
    > any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's about *most* people.
    > Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.



    Richard cares about portability :)

    but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no compiler
    have implemented it yet ?





    --
    http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
    my email ID is @ the above blog.
    just check the "About Myself" page :)
    arnuld, May 6, 2008
    #17
  18. On 5 May, 12:16, Mark McIntyre <> wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:


    > > Name six. :)

    >
    > What is extant today is irrelevant,


    on the contrary its very relevant. One of Cs great
    features is its portability. If you start using C99
    you loose that. The lack of implementations is *very*
    relevant.


    > as you know perfectly well.


    I don't


    > There
    > are several today that support a large part of C99.


    that's no good unless they implement the *same* "large part".
    Is there a formal ISO definition of "large part"?


    > There may be others in the future.


    or there may not.


    > >> rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
    > >> knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
    > >> subset without knowing a bit about C99.

    >
    > > Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.

    >
    > And to do that, you need to know what _is_ a subset of C99. You must
    > have investigated this, ie shown an interest. Thanks for proving the
    > point.


    good point!


    --
    Nick Keighley

    De maan likt niet hoog
    Maar het is niet zo
    De maan is wel hoog
    Of niet sams?
    Nick Keighley, May 6, 2008
    #18
  19. On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <> wrote:
    > > On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:27:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:


    > > If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I
    > > don't have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do
    > > most people. In any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's
    > > about *most* people. Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.

    >
    > Richard cares about portability :)
    >
    > but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
    > compiler have implemented it yet ?


    I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.

    --
    Nick Keighley
    Nick Keighley, May 6, 2008
    #19
  20. Robert Gamble

    arnuld Guest

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:

    >> On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <> wrote:
    >> but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
    >> compiler have implemented it yet ?


    > I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.



    it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports the
    C99 completely( or properly)

    ??


    --
    http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
    my email ID is @ the above blog.
    just check the "About Myself" page :)
    arnuld, May 6, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thanasis \(sch\)

    awt book+java animation book

    Thanasis \(sch\), Oct 13, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    588
    Alex Hunsley
    Oct 14, 2004
  2. Jay Parlar

    Twisted book opinions?

    Jay Parlar, Feb 9, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,565
    Jacob Hallen
    Feb 18, 2006
  3. Dick Moores

    Opinions about this new Python book?

    Dick Moores, Aug 14, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    455
  4. max w.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    649
  5. Gavri Fernandez
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    138
    Jason Sweat
    Mar 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page