C++, a good starting language?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Omar Radwan, May 23, 2014.

  1. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Jorgen Grahn <> writes:
    >True, but it was posted as a response to a newbie and without comment.
    >Someone suggested it might have been a joke: was it?


    It was a quotation of something written by Linus Torvalds,
    so he should be the one to be asked whether it was a joke.
     
    Stefan Ram, May 23, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Ed Anson <> writes: One
    >can learn a language very quickly.


    N3797 has 1352 large pages. It requires knowledge of large
    parts of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 with about 577 pages and has some
    other normative references. Anyone who says that he can learn
    this quickly might be subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
     
    Stefan Ram, May 24, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Omar Radwan

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Sat, 2014-05-24, Stefan Ram wrote:
    > Ed Anson <> writes: One
    >>can learn a language very quickly.

    >
    > N3797 has 1352 large pages. It requires knowledge of large
    > parts of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 with about 577 pages and has some
    > other normative references. Anyone who says that he can learn
    > this quickly might be subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect.


    Noone learns /all/ of a language, and I don't think that was what Ed
    suggested, either.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, May 24, 2014
    #23
  4. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Jorgen Grahn <> writes:
    >On Sat, 2014-05-24, Stefan Ram wrote:
    >>Ed Anson <> writes: One
    >>>can learn a language very quickly.

    >>N3797 has 1352 large pages. It requires knowledge of large
    >>parts of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 with about 577 pages and has some
    >>other normative references. Anyone who says that he can learn
    >>this quickly might be subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    >Noone learns /all/ of a language, and I don't think that was what Ed
    >suggested, either.


    Then, what was it that he suggested?

    There might be several hundred persons in this world that
    can provide a meaningful answer in source code when asked to
    write an example for an application of recursive variadic
    templates in C++ out of there head (with only minor typos).

    Maybe several thousand?

    Possibly, Ed was referring to a subset of C++? In this case,
    it depends on the subset. Maybe he was referring to that
    subset which is very similar to the languages he already
    knows or to a very small subset.

    I have a source that says that the human long-term memory
    can store about 22 bytes per hour (other sources give other
    values, sometimes drastically larger, this is not yet
    well-established knowledge). How many bytes of C++ knowledge
    does the human brain need to excel at a C++ job interview?
    How long would it take to transfer this to the long-term
    memory at a rate of 22 bytes per hour?
     
    Stefan Ram, May 25, 2014
    #24
  5. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Paavo Helde <> writes:
    >-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote in news:learning-20140525173837
    >@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de:
    >>I have a source that says that the human long-term memory
    >>can store about 22 bytes per hour (other sources give other
    >>values, sometimes drastically larger, this is not yet
    >>well-established knowledge).

    >Other sources claim that it takes ca 10,000 hours of dedicated work to
    >become a real master in any given field. Multiplying by 22 bytes gives us
    >ca 30 kB, so apparently to be master in any field it is sufficient to store
    >at most 30 kB. Now it would be interesting to know what is the information
    >content of the C++ standard?


    Actually, the human brain is not a digital computer with today's
    digital computer architecture. For example, for the digital
    computers, we humans have devised the encodings, such as ASCII
    or IEEE floating point. The brain, dynamically, creates its
    own encodings. Chess masters can remember many board patterns
    with just a few »chunks« in memory, because they store board
    patterns in chunks, not individual pieces. But this is not a
    digital or binary encoding. So the use of the term »bit« is
    not really adequate. It is clear anyways that 30 kB of information
    in an optimized »encoding« is more than 30 kB of ASCII text.

    Even experts have to look up details in books. But they have
    that information »cached« in their memory that is needed
    very often, so that it would slow down them too much to always
    look it up in a book. To be able to assess /which/ information
    is needed so often that it is worth to fill the precious
    cache memory ,the brain needs to gather usage statistics with
    some significance, which in turn needs some time. Reading a
    single book won't do it, such statistics have to use several
    sources and experiences.

    >This depends very much on the nature of the interview. From what I read
    >from TDWTF, the needed knowledge might be sometimes better measured in
    >bits, not bytes. See e.g.: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Disqualified-
    >Candidates.aspx


    This is the topic where usually the English idiom »to be
    able to ["program" or another verb] his way out of a paper
    bag« is used (in the negated form).
     
    Stefan Ram, May 25, 2014
    #25
  6. Omar Radwan

    Guest

    can you solve this problem
    Problem:
    According to the Gregorian calendar, it was Monday on the date 01/01/1900. If any year is input through the keyboard write a program to find out what is the day on 1st January of this year.
     
    , May 27, 2014
    #26
  7. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    writes:
    >If any year is input through the keyboard write a program to find out what is the day on 1st January of this year.


    #include <iostream>
    #include <ostream>
    #include <istream>

    static const char * const w[] =
    { "sunday", "monday", "tuesday", "wednesday",
    "thursday", "friday", "saturday" };

    int main()
    { int y; ::std::cin >> y; int d = 1; int m = 1; int s = 0;
    if( !( y % 4 ))s = 1; if( !( y % 100 ))s = 0; if( !( y % 400 ))s = 1;
    if( m < 3 ){ m += 13; --y; } else ++m;
    s = d + 26 * m / 10 + y + y / 4 - y / 100 + y / 400 + 6;
    s = s % 7; ::std::cout << w[ s ]; }
     
    Stefan Ram, May 27, 2014
    #27
  8. Omar Radwan

    Stefan Ram Guest

    -berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
    >if( !( y % 4 ))s = 1; if( !( y % 100 ))s = 0; if( !( y % 400 ))s = 1;


    The line quoted above can be deleted from the program.
     
    Stefan Ram, May 27, 2014
    #28
  9. Omar Radwan

    Bo Persson Guest

    Juha Nieminen skrev 2014-05-29 11:05:
    > Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    >> Linus Torvalds:
    >>
    >> ?C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by
    >> the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it (...)

    >
    > Linus Torvalds is an example of a person who may be quite talented in
    > one aspect of computer programming, but who's extremely dogmatic about
    > another aspect of it for rather stupid reasons.
    >
    > The sheer stupidity of his arguments against C++ can be seen even in
    > that short quote above: He is literally saying that C++ is "made more
    > horrible" because lots of poor programmers use it. As if the quality
    > of a programming language is determined by how many poor programmers
    > use it.
    >
    > By that standard C is also a horrible language (possibly even more so).
    > Yet by Linus' twisted logic that's not so. In his twisted mind C somehow
    > makes people write good and efficient code by necessity. I don't really
    > understand what kind of fantasy world Linus lives in in his mind.
    >


    Linus is in a position where he himself makes his own statement true.

    Those of us who know how to write proper C++ will now never supply any
    code for the Linux kernel, so Linus only sees "horrible code".

    Those who know how to write proper C code WILL show their code to Linus,
    and he recognizes that as higher quality. :)


    Bo Persson
     
    Bo Persson, May 29, 2014
    #29
  10. Omar Radwan

    David Brown Guest

    On 29/05/14 11:05, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    > Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    >> Linus Torvalds:
    >>
    >> ?C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by
    >> the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it (...)

    >
    > Linus Torvalds is an example of a person who may be quite talented in
    > one aspect of computer programming, but who's extremely dogmatic about
    > another aspect of it for rather stupid reasons.
    >
    > The sheer stupidity of his arguments against C++ can be seen even in
    > that short quote above: He is literally saying that C++ is "made more
    > horrible" because lots of poor programmers use it. As if the quality
    > of a programming language is determined by how many poor programmers
    > use it.
    >
    > By that standard C is also a horrible language (possibly even more so).
    > Yet by Linus' twisted logic that's not so. In his twisted mind C somehow
    > makes people write good and efficient code by necessity. I don't really
    > understand what kind of fantasy world Linus lives in in his mind.
    >


    Linus certainly tends to exaggerate his points, and to express his
    personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts. To a fair
    extent he is justified in this - the topic was one of his two personal
    projects, the "git" version control system. He wrote the software, at
    least the initial version. He administers the project, and he gets to
    choose the language(s) used for it. He was asked why /he/ did not
    choose C++ for /his/ project - not for a blanket statement of opinion on
    all uses of C++ in software development.

    And I think there is at least some correlation between programmer
    abilities and programming languages, and how "good" a programmer has to
    be to be "good" in particular languages. It is very easy to write bad
    C++ code - a lot of C++ programs start off trying to have a good
    structure, and end up bogged down in layers of complication and
    abstraction. I have seen such systems, with so many layers of factory
    functions, delegating classes, wrappers, abstractions, etc., that it is
    almost impossible to find code that actually /does/ something other than
    pass responsibility on to another function or class. That is the kind
    of thing that Linus is afraid of letting into the kernel.

    I don't think C makes it easier to be a /good/ programmer than C++ does
    - but I think C++ makes it easier for a poor or mediocre programmer to
    make a bigger mess than with C. And it is easier for a good C
    programmer to help the mediocre C programmer improve his good than with C++.
     
    David Brown, May 29, 2014
    #30
  11. Omar Radwan

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Thu, 2014-05-29, Bo Persson wrote:
    > Juha Nieminen skrev 2014-05-29 11:05:
    >> Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    >>> Linus Torvalds:
    >>>
    >>> ?C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by
    >>> the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it (...)

    >>
    >> Linus Torvalds is an example of a person who may be quite talented in
    >> one aspect of computer programming, but who's extremely dogmatic about
    >> another aspect of it for rather stupid reasons.
    >>
    >> The sheer stupidity of his arguments against C++ can be seen even in
    >> that short quote above: He is literally saying that C++ is "made more
    >> horrible" because lots of poor programmers use it. As if the quality
    >> of a programming language is determined by how many poor programmers
    >> use it.
    >>
    >> By that standard C is also a horrible language (possibly even more so).
    >> Yet by Linus' twisted logic that's not so. In his twisted mind C somehow
    >> makes people write good and efficient code by necessity. I don't really
    >> understand what kind of fantasy world Linus lives in in his mind.
    >>

    >
    > Linus is in a position where he himself makes his own statement true.
    >
    > Those of us who know how to write proper C++ will now never supply any
    > code for the Linux kernel, so Linus only sees "horrible code".
    >
    > Those who know how to write proper C code WILL show their code to Linus,
    > and he recognizes that as higher quality. :)


    Actually (and it came as a surprise to me) that quote seems to come
    not from the kernel mailing list but from the Git mailing list, when
    people discussed picking/using a string library:

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918

    I'm disappointed.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, May 29, 2014
    #31
  12. Omar Radwan

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    Over-abstraction and C++ (was Re: C++, a good starting language?)

    On Thu, 2014-05-29, David Brown wrote:
    ....
    > Linus certainly tends to exaggerate his points, and to express his
    > personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts. To a fair
    > extent he is justified in this - the topic was one of his two personal
    > projects, the "git" version control system. He wrote the software, at
    > least the initial version. He administers the project, and he gets to
    > choose the language(s) used for it. He was asked why /he/ did not
    > choose C++ for /his/ project - not for a blanket statement of opinion on
    > all uses of C++ in software development.
    >
    > And I think there is at least some correlation between programmer
    > abilities and programming languages, and how "good" a programmer has to
    > be to be "good" in particular languages. It is very easy to write bad
    > C++ code - a lot of C++ programs start off trying to have a good
    > structure, and end up bogged down in layers of complication and
    > abstraction. I have seen such systems, with so many layers of factory
    > functions, delegating classes, wrappers, abstractions, etc., that it is
    > almost impossible to find code that actually /does/ something other than
    > pass responsibility on to another function or class.


    Leaving Linus aside for a moment ...

    I've seen that kind of code a lot. Full of those things you mention.
    I don't think I mind any of the things you list, as long as they bring
    some benefit to /this/ particular software project.

    Design, to me, is supposed to /highlight/ the interesting parts of the
    code. If it suffocates it, it has failed.

    Assuming "abstraction overkill", the "fantasy castle effect" or
    whatever we should call it is a bad thing:

    (a) What does it say about the quality of the programmer?
    (b) Are C++ programmers extra vulnerable to abstraction overkill?
    (c) If so, why?
    (d) If not, are most programmers so bad that they will start to
    produce nonsense if you give them powerful enough tools?
    Or will the worst ones give up if all they have is C?
    (e) Do C++ projects attract high-level architecture people who mess
    up the design and then leave, while C projects are run more
    pragmatically because they're less attractive to predators?

    I don't have the answers.

    > I don't think C makes it easier to be a /good/ programmer than C++ does
    > - but I think C++ makes it easier for a poor or mediocre programmer to
    > make a bigger mess than with C. And it is easier for a good C
    > programmer to help the mediocre C programmer improve his good than with C++.


    I don't see why that would be, in a project. The things you describe
    are on the architecture and design levels, and the mediocre programmers
    probably aren't allowed to unilaterally decide that part, if there are
    good ones around.

    Also, decent C++ design isn't that hard to learn -- IMHO what you need
    to know in 90% of the cases is summarized in one chapter of TC++PL.
    Arrange your code as types, modeled after concepts in the problem domain.
    Use type safety. Use RAII. Use the standard library. And so on.

    A company could have a rule that if you thing you need 15 layers of
    virtual inheritance, you need to discuss it with someone first.


    No matter if "you'll mess up if you use C++" is true or just a popular
    idea, it is a problem. To me personally, to software projects, and to
    C++.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, May 29, 2014
    #32
  13. Omar Radwan

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    Re: Over-abstraction and C++ (was Re: C++, a good starting language?)

    On Thu, 2014-05-29, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
    > On Thu, 2014-05-29, David Brown wrote:


    >> be to be "good" in particular languages. It is very easy to write bad
    >> C++ code - a lot of C++ programs start off trying to have a good
    >> structure, and end up bogged down in layers of complication and
    >> abstraction. I have seen such systems, with so many layers of factory
    >> functions, delegating classes, wrappers, abstractions, etc., that it is
    >> almost impossible to find code that actually /does/ something other than
    >> pass responsibility on to another function or class.

    >

    ....
    > I've seen that kind of code a lot. Full of those things you mention.
    > I don't think I mind any of the things you list, as long as they bring
    > some benefit to /this/ particular software project.


    In a separate posting because it wasn't relevant to my main message,
    here's something I found (http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/xkb/html/)
    which summarizes my feelings sometimes:

    Oh yes. I've been through there on my trip around the image.
    The giant vaulted Klein bottles covered with mosaics of other,
    different, Klein bottles ... the rows of gargoyles on the
    roof, each holding a sign reading "See Previous Gargoyle" ...
    the little food stands around the base, where they sell you
    food stand vouchers, redeemable for food stand vouchers at all
    food stands except this one ... the hall of the penitents ...
    the giant Romanesque stained glass windows, built out of
    thousands of tiny LooksLike blocks, lit from behind by the
    radiance of the great Aka ...

    Truly one of the architectural wonders of our age. I've been
    there alright. And I bought postcards.

    --- Steve Taylor

    (I have no idea who Steve Taylor is.)

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, May 29, 2014
    #33
  14. Omar Radwan

    David Brown Guest

    Re: Over-abstraction and C++ (was Re: C++, a good starting language?)

    On 29/05/14 16:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
    > On Thu, 2014-05-29, David Brown wrote:
    > ...
    >> Linus certainly tends to exaggerate his points, and to express his
    >> personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts. To a fair
    >> extent he is justified in this - the topic was one of his two personal
    >> projects, the "git" version control system. He wrote the software, at
    >> least the initial version. He administers the project, and he gets to
    >> choose the language(s) used for it. He was asked why /he/ did not
    >> choose C++ for /his/ project - not for a blanket statement of opinion on
    >> all uses of C++ in software development.
    >>
    >> And I think there is at least some correlation between programmer
    >> abilities and programming languages, and how "good" a programmer has to
    >> be to be "good" in particular languages. It is very easy to write bad
    >> C++ code - a lot of C++ programs start off trying to have a good
    >> structure, and end up bogged down in layers of complication and
    >> abstraction. I have seen such systems, with so many layers of factory
    >> functions, delegating classes, wrappers, abstractions, etc., that it is
    >> almost impossible to find code that actually /does/ something other than
    >> pass responsibility on to another function or class.

    >
    > Leaving Linus aside for a moment ...
    >
    > I've seen that kind of code a lot. Full of those things you mention.
    > I don't think I mind any of the things you list, as long as they bring
    > some benefit to /this/ particular software project.


    It's certainly true that all these items have their place - they can be
    used, as well as abused.

    >
    > Design, to me, is supposed to /highlight/ the interesting parts of the
    > code. If it suffocates it, it has failed.
    >
    > Assuming "abstraction overkill", the "fantasy castle effect" or
    > whatever we should call it is a bad thing:
    >
    > (a) What does it say about the quality of the programmer?
    > (b) Are C++ programmers extra vulnerable to abstraction overkill?
    > (c) If so, why?
    > (d) If not, are most programmers so bad that they will start to
    > produce nonsense if you give them powerful enough tools?
    > Or will the worst ones give up if all they have is C?
    > (e) Do C++ projects attract high-level architecture people who mess
    > up the design and then leave, while C projects are run more
    > pragmatically because they're less attractive to predators?
    >
    > I don't have the answers.


    Interesting questions. I could come up with /some/ answers, but /good/
    answers would require a lot of thought. One obvious point is that if a
    language offers a lot of choice and features, people are going to use
    features that they think are interesting or "cool", even if they are not
    necessarily the best options. And if a language is big, it is hard for
    people to know everything - they are going to pick options that are
    sub-optimal or overly complex, simply because they are not aware of
    better options.

    >
    >> I don't think C makes it easier to be a /good/ programmer than C++ does
    >> - but I think C++ makes it easier for a poor or mediocre programmer to
    >> make a bigger mess than with C. And it is easier for a good C
    >> programmer to help the mediocre C programmer improve his good than with C++.

    >
    > I don't see why that would be, in a project. The things you describe
    > are on the architecture and design levels, and the mediocre programmers
    > probably aren't allowed to unilaterally decide that part, if there are
    > good ones around.


    In a centralised and tightly organised development environment, that may
    be true. In a more loose projects, such as is common in many widespread
    open source projects, there is not such a clear distinction between the
    high-level designers and the low-level coders. People often get
    involved in different parts of the project, and submit code for comment,
    improvement, and inclusion in the project. My point is that if a
    mediocre C programmer submits some code, a more experienced developer
    can often make suggestions or fixes that get the code up to the quality
    they are looking for. But with C++ code, there is a greater chance that
    the type of abstractions and structure chosen by the relative beginner
    (either beginner to C++, or beginner to the project) simply does not fit
    well with the project, and the code will be unfixable.

    >
    > Also, decent C++ design isn't that hard to learn -- IMHO what you need
    > to know in 90% of the cases is summarized in one chapter of TC++PL.
    > Arrange your code as types, modeled after concepts in the problem domain.
    > Use type safety. Use RAII. Use the standard library. And so on.
    >
    > A company could have a rule that if you thing you need 15 layers of
    > virtual inheritance, you need to discuss it with someone first.


    I agree - for a company.

    >
    >
    > No matter if "you'll mess up if you use C++" is true or just a popular
    > idea, it is a problem. To me personally, to software projects, and to
    > C++.


    Agreed. I can't say how much it is a problem, and how much it is just
    perceived to be a problem - but either way it is a problem.

    >
    > /Jorgen
    >
     
    David Brown, May 29, 2014
    #34
  15. Omar Radwan

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Wed, 2014-06-04, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    > David Brown <> wrote:

    ....
    >> I don't think C makes it easier to be a /good/ programmer than C++ does
    >> - but I think C++ makes it easier for a poor or mediocre programmer to
    >> make a bigger mess than with C.

    >
    > I'm not so sure of that. The mess might look a bit different in C than
    > in a typical C++ program, but probably not any less messy.
    >
    > Many C projects, even popular ones out there, are sometimes quite ugly
    > code. For example a lot of the source code of mplayer is really, really
    > ugly (with single functions approaching 500 lines of code, with not even
    > a single comment, and so on.)


    My experience too.

    It's somewhat ironic that the Linux kernel is really well done[1].
    It's done the way I (a C++ guy) would have done it, if I needed
    maintainable yet efficient and portable code and was restricted to
    using C.

    /Jorgen

    [1] IMHO of course, and the parts I've looked at.

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Jun 4, 2014
    #35
  16. Juha Nieminen wrote:

    > David Brown <> wrote:
    >> Linus certainly tends to exaggerate his points, and to express his
    >> personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts. To a fair
    >> extent he is justified in this - the topic was one of his two personal
    >> projects, the "git" version control system. He wrote the software, at
    >> least the initial version. He administers the project, and he gets to
    >> choose the language(s) used for it. He was asked why /he/ did not
    >> choose C++ for /his/ project - not for a blanket statement of opinion on
    >> all uses of C++ in software development.

    >
    > Yet if you read the article, it's a very vitriolic attack on C++ in
    > general (rather than simply being a "why C++ isn't used in git" in
    > particular).
    >
    >> I don't think C makes it easier to be a /good/ programmer than C++ does
    >> - but I think C++ makes it easier for a poor or mediocre programmer to
    >> make a bigger mess than with C.

    >
    > I'm not so sure of that. The mess might look a bit different in C than
    > in a typical C++ program, but probably not any less messy.
    >
    > Many C projects, even popular ones out there, are sometimes quite ugly
    > code. For example a lot of the source code of mplayer is really, really
    > ugly (with single functions approaching 500 lines of code, with not even
    > a single comment, and so on.)
    >
    >> And it is easier for a good C
    >> programmer to help the mediocre C programmer improve his good than
    >> with C++.

    >
    > Are you sure of that? It seems to me that in C++ it's much easier to
    > suggest what to avoid and what to use instead because of the tools that
    > C++ provides out-of-the-box (mainly in its standard library).
    >
    > Most tasks requiring dynamic memory allocation are very complicated in C
    > because you can't get around manual memory management. In C++ many of
    > these tasks become much easier and simpler.
    >
    > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


    This reminds me of a quote from Chuck Moore, inventor of Forth.
    "Forth is an amplifier for all skills of the programmer, the good and the
    bad."
    Or put in other words, with a bigger hammer you can destroy bigger objects.
    In this sense C++ allow to create a bigger mess than C because the
    "amplification factor" of C++ is larger than that of C.

    OTOH C++ make it easier to create better structured code.
    --
    Reinhardt Behm
     
    Reinhardt Behm, Jun 4, 2014
    #36
  17. On 2014-05-22 16:56, Omar Radwan wrote:
    > The reason that I chose C++ is that because it's extremely powerful,
    > low-level like C, and has high level things too, like classes and
    > objects. Am I going through the right path? Or should I switch?


    I suggest you take a look at Stroustrup's article "Learning Standard
    C++ as a New Language" <http://www.stroustrup.com/new_learning.pdf>.

    (Definitely it can be biased, but this is a C++ group after all.)

    --
    Seungbeom Kim
     
    Seungbeom Kim, Jun 4, 2014
    #37
    1. Advertisements

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. PJ6
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    623
  2. Ed
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,610
    Dimitri Maziuk
    Mar 27, 2006
  3. pabbu
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,043
    Marc Boyer
    Nov 7, 2005
  4. Shravani
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,043
    Bartc
    Mar 16, 2008
  5. Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,652
  6. Casey Hawthorne
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    942
    Beej Jorgensen
    Nov 6, 2009
Loading...