Stupid C++ ?

[Hoopster]

Hello,


I know nothing about C++ but want to get started.


Is there any good free C++ program that I can try to see if I like
programming? I also need a good free compiler. I don't want to
purchased the regular VB C++ until I know that I will like it.


Any help would be appreciated.


Thanks

Hoops

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I know nothing about C++ but want to get started.


Is there any good free C++ program that I can try to see if I like
programming? I also need a good free compiler. I don't want to
purchased the regular VB C++ until I know that I will like it.

www.google.com

V

 

[Mike Wahler]

Hello,


I know nothing about C++ but want to get started.

Here's the FAQ from the 'learners' newsgroup,
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/

I think you'll find it useful.

-Mike

 

[Sandeep]

purchased the regular VB C++ until I know that I will like it.

Google for MinGw or gcc(g++) for windows - I am assuming you are on
windows... Linux usually comes with dev tools like gcc or g++, if not
you can download them.

 

[Eckhard Lehmann]

Hello,


I know nothing about C++ but want to get started.

Buy a book. Good recommendations could be available here, depending on
your knowledge level of programming in general. I got started with
programming in general and C++ in particular with the "Standard C++
bible" from Clayton Walnum & Al Stevens. I still refer to this book.

Is there any good free C++ program that I can try to see if I like
programming? I also need a good free compiler. I don't want to

There are heaps of programs out there. Take a look at
www.sourceforge.net and browse the software map (top of page) for
projects by programming language. You can download them as source and/or
binary, read the source and learn...

purchased the regular VB C++ until I know that I will like it.

VB and C++ are _very_ different - although Microsoft doesn't state this
so clearly in their advertisments. Also, Visual C++ is different from
Standard C++, it is more of an "proprietary extended subset". You should
learn _Standard_ C++ first, before stepping into M$ extensions.
For this I can recommend MingW: http://www.mingw.org/. It is a
completely free set of compilers and other tools you need for
programming. The really good thing about it is, that you will find these
tools on other operating systems as well, if you ever want or need to
hack on a different platform than Win (which is more fun, by the way).

There is also a free IDE, which brings the compilers and tools from
MingW together and gives you an easy start to them - Dev-Cpp:
http://www.bloodshed.net/. I recommend to download and install this.
Take a few steps in the environment, write some
'std::cout << "hello world" << std::endl;' programs, get a feeling on
the language and how Dev-Cpp invokes the compiler and linker. Then, try
the compiler invocation by yourself on a cmd and use an editor to write
your programs. By this you learn how compilers work step by step - a
very important experience! All compilers work similar, so if you ever
run Visual C++ later, you will find that their compiler works the same
way as g++ from MingW, apart from slightly different command line options.

Have fun, so far ;-)


Eckhard

 

[Eckhard Lehmann]

www.google.com

What an arrogant answer.
If he had wanted to know this, he wouldn't have come here.


Eckhard

 

[Sandeep]

What an arrogant answer.
If he had wanted to know this, he wouldn't have come here.


Eckhard

That is not an arrogant answer, if you just type "free c++ compiler
windows" ( which was what was required), you will get enough results -
Doing your own "homework" is the motto of the group I guess

BTW, I do appreciate the time you that took out and listed out the
details in your latest post

Sandeep

 

[Eckhard Lehmann]

>

That is not an arrogant answer, if you just type "free c++ compiler
windows" ( which was what was required), you will get enough results -
Doing your own "homework" is the motto of the group I guess

Yes, that is the first step, of course. But his question was not about
"any free compiler", it was about "a good free compiler" and "advice on
how to start learning C++".
You know how it is to stand in front of a huge heap of information
(which maybe comes out of google) - and you don't know where to start
and how to digest it? I am sure you do... ;-). It is even more
complicted if you don't have any clue of the topic so far.

BTW, I do appreciate the time you that took out and listed out the
details in your latest post

You're welcome . During the week I don't have time to do this, but on
the weekend...


Eckhard

 

[Fabio Fracassi]

Yes, that is the first step, of course. But his question was not about
"any free compiler", it was about "a good free compiler" and "advice on
how to start learning C++".

And if he had used any of this quotes with google, He'd already had the
exact same answers he got here on the first result page(s).

This might sound arrogant, but really, using google (or any other search
engine) is such a basic skill nowadays that one should really know how to
use it. And with use it I mean that one should be able to gain basic
knowledge of a completely unfamiliar topic with it. I mean it is not rocket
science, it just takes a bit of time and patience.

Furthermore this question pops up about once a week, so searching the
archives or the FAQ would be a good idea, two.

I think it is common courtesy not to ask a question, if you have not spend
at least an hour to answer it yourself.

Fabio

 

[Ken]

I like Dev-C++ from bloodshed software. It is small and installs quick
and does what I need. Oh and it has a rather nice gui and it will let
you write a quick program and compile without setting up a project.

www.bloodshed.com is where to get it. I dont know if it is the
greatest compiler on earth but I think it is a great place to start
because I've found it rather friendly.

I only recommend one book and that is The Ansi C Programming language
by Brian W. Kerninghan and Dennis M. ritchie.

People here I am sure will say that the book isn't C++. Well it isn't
but having the best C book there is on the chaps desk wont kill him
will it? This book is a terrific reference for C. You should know the
C syntax well! It will make you a better C++ programmer. (I feel I
need to defend this from people before they descend on my like
vultures... I am not telling him to go practice C for years and have
entrenched C thinking but a few months of C without all the extra C++
semantics will help him out a lot before he adds all that stuff).

You will need some basic intro to C++ book too. Maybe one of those 21
days books or C++ for dummies. Read the reviews on amazon.com. For
the experts... these books are not useful in the long run because
people outgrow them very quick and they are next to useless for
reference later because they are so verbose but they have a place for
the inexperienced.

 

[Greg Comeau]

I like Dev-C++ from bloodshed software. It is small and installs quick
and does what I need. Oh and it has a rather nice gui and it will let
you write a quick program and compile without setting up a project.

www.bloodshed.com is where to get it. I dont know if it is the
greatest compiler on earth but I think it is a great place to start
because I've found it rather friendly.

I only recommend one book and that is The Ansi C Programming language
by Brian W. Kerninghan and Dennis M. ritchie.

People here I am sure will say that the book isn't C++. Well it isn't
but having the best C book there is on the chaps desk wont kill him
will it? This book is a terrific reference for C. You should know the
C syntax well! It will make you a better C++ programmer. (I feel I
need to defend this from people before they descend on my like
vultures... I am not telling him to go practice C for years and have
entrenched C thinking but a few months of C without all the extra C++
semantics will help him out a lot before he adds all that stuff).

K&R is a good C book, and yes, some parts of C are indeed
applicable to C++. However, some parts are not. And some
parts are not the way you would do it in C++ as a first choice.
So while you are definitely not telling him to go practice
C for years, the problem is that he _does_ want to know some
of the C++ semantics, and you're tossing that out the window.

You will need some basic intro to C++ book too. Maybe one of those 21
days books or C++ for dummies. Read the reviews on amazon.com. For
the experts... these books are not useful in the long run because
people outgrow them very quick and they are next to useless for
reference later because they are so verbose but they have a place for
the inexperienced.

If they are not useful they by definition that do not have a place
for the experienced or inexperienced.

 

[Mike Wahler]

I like Dev-C++ from bloodshed software. It is small and installs quick
and does what I need. Oh and it has a rather nice gui and it will let
you write a quick program and compile without setting up a project.

www.bloodshed.com is where to get it. I dont know if it is the
greatest compiler on earth but I think it is a great place to start
because I've found it rather friendly.

I only recommend one book and that is The Ansi C Programming language
by Brian W. Kerninghan and Dennis M. ritchie.

People here I am sure will say that the book isn't C++.

And they'd be correct.

Well it isn't
but having the best C book there is on the chaps desk wont kill him
will it?

No, but it will not teach C++.

This book is a terrific reference for C.

Agreed. But OP asked about C++, not C. They're two completely
separate, distinct languages.

You should know the
C syntax well!

Someone desiring to learn C++ should learn the C++ syntax.
The fact that this syntax is similar to that of another
language is irrelevant.

It will make you a better C++ programmer.

I must disagree. Quite often, syntax shared by C and
C++ has different semantics. This will only serve to
confuse and confound the novice were he to try to apply
the rules of one language while learning another.

(I feel I
need to defend this from people

Defend away. I assure you it's a losing proposition.

before they descend on my like
vultures...

Metaphors are not necessary. Post inaccurate or questionable
advice, and you *will* be challenged.

I am not telling him to go practice C for years and have
entrenched C thinking

But you are advising someone to try learning C++ from
a C textbook. This is simply extremely poor, harmful
advice.

but a few months of C without all the extra C++
semantics

Semantics of C++ which differ from those of C are not
'extra', they're *different*. That is one of the most
important reasons for not trying to learn C++ from a
C book. Another important reason is that in order to
use C++ most effectively, many of the idioms common to
C do not apply.

will help him out a lot before he adds all that stuff).

It will harm much more than help.

You will need some basic intro to C++ book too.

Not 'too', but *instead*.

Maybe one of those 21
days books

Most experts will tell folks to avoid such books. I don't
consider myself 'expert', but I do agree with them.

or C++ for dummies.

IMO someone who admits to himself that he's a 'dummy'
by purchasing such a book should not be attempting
programming. Programming is *not* for 'dummies'.
It's for those who desire to acquire problem-solving
skills.

Read the reviews on amazon.com.

I suggest that he not do that. Such reviews will suffer
from one or both of these flaws:

-Written by or for those with a financial interest in the
book(s)

-Written by novices who are not qualified to assess
technical information on a subject with which they're
ignorant.

Much higher quality reviews are available at www.accu.org
and are written by acknowledged experts.

For
the experts... these books are not useful in the long run because
people outgrow them very quick and they are next to useless for
reference later because they are so verbose but they have a place for
the inexperienced.

They have no place for either group.
'Easy' rarely equates with 'correct' or 'best'.


-Mike

 

[Robert J. Hansen]

People here I am sure will say that the book isn't C++.

Unless I'm misremembering, no less an authority that Stroustrup has
said that pretty much every single program in K&R is also valid and
respectable C++. It may not be the canonical C++ way or the preferred
C++ way, but it is _a_ C++ way.

That said:

It will make you a better C++ programmer.

Sure, the same way learning LISP made me a better C++ programmer.
Learning a different language and a different way of thinking about
problems generally helps you out across-the-board.

But let's keep in mind that's what you're doing when you advise people
to learn C. You're advising them to learn a different language and a
different way of thinking about problems. That's all well and good if
someone's asking you "how do I become a better C++ programmer?", but
it's pretty unhelpful when someone is asking you "how do I learn C++?"

If I were to tell people to learn C++ by picking up _Structure and
Interpretation of Computer Programs_, that would be viewed as a pretty
nonhelpful answer, right?

 

[Eckhard Lehmann]

And they'd be correct.


No, but it will not teach C++.

The K&R book will not teach C++, but it will teach programming - better
than any other book I've seen so far for any language. Well, I don't
know about Knuth's "The Art of computer programming" volumes, they are
relatively expensive.
I agree that C != C++. I was developing thousands of lines of C code and
almost the same amount in Java, so I thought it would be no problem to
switch to C++... and I royally stranded ;-).
Well, now after some research it is much better and I start to like the
language.

But, what holds true anyway is, that both languages can be mixed
seamlessly in software projects (which is a great advantage) - and often
they are. So, in practice you don't get around a more or less deep
understanding of C, even if you never write a complete C program.


Eckhard

 

[Greg Comeau]

The K&R book will not teach C++, but it will teach programming - better
than any other book I've seen so far for any language. Well, I don't
know about Knuth's "The Art of computer programming" volumes, they are
relatively expensive.

TCPL certainly holds its place firming in computing history.
Otherwise, it's not clear at all what you're saying.

I agree that C != C++. I was developing thousands of lines of C code and
almost the same amount in Java, so I thought it would be no problem to
switch to C++... and I royally stranded ;-).
Well, now after some research it is much better and I start to like the
language.

Great. Given lanuage X, Y and Z, such a situation often happens
between 2 of them, of 2 of them "against" the 3rd. This can occur
for many reason.

But, what holds true anyway is, that both languages can be mixed
seamlessly in software projects (which is a great advantage) - and often
they are. So, in practice you don't get around a more or less deep
understanding of C, even if you never write a complete C program.

This is probably not false, but probably misses the point.
On the one end of the spectrum it's important to be open-minded
and diverse, but on the other end, it's also worth focusing on
certain things too. So, for instance, it may be so that some
projects are some hybrid, sometimes purposely sometimes not,
but could it have been better in any ways with the same constraints?
Often it can be. So while we can talk about possible benefits
of knowing C well to do C++ programming, and knowing C++ well to
do C programming, and some other combo's thereof, that can often
spell a mismatch and whatever ramifications from that come about.

You mention C and C++ and Java above. I certainly hope each language
helped in your programming skills, to appreciate what each offers,
including new style of programming, etc, but to expect each to be
equal is not sound. And although I'd consider it a plus for a project
in a new language you were to do a job in, it would be naive
to expect you to just immediately be able to pick up and program
in it, to know all it's nooks and crannies, to be able to understand
its new style, to be able to be efficient in its idioms, etc etc etc.
Therefore, I would expect you to explicitly pick up manuals and
tutorials on it, it all it means, and then give you the appropriate
time to get up to speed with it.

 

[Eckhard Lehmann]

TCPL certainly holds its place firming in computing history.
Otherwise, it's not clear at all what you're saying.

Regarding the "Art of computer programming" I mean, that I just didn't
buy the book so far and can not judge about it's content. I heard that
it must be good, but I don't know.

Great. Given lanuage X, Y and Z, such a situation often happens
between 2 of them, of 2 of them "against" the 3rd. This can occur
for many reason.

All three share the same elements, (where Java and C++ borrowed them
from C). You can not avoid trying to map your knowledge from one
language to another - that is the same as with real, spoken languages
. But your compiler will tell you that early, even more when you
compile with -Wall -Werror.

This is probably not false, but probably misses the point.
On the one end of the spectrum it's important to be open-minded
and diverse, but on the other end, it's also worth focusing on
certain things too. So, for instance, it may be so that some
projects are some hybrid, sometimes purposely sometimes not,
but could it have been better in any ways with the same constraints?
Often it can be. So while we can talk about possible benefits

Always almost it can not. When you have such a case, it might have one
or many of the following reasons (there might be others as well):

- functionality is not available in the language of choice
- functionality can not be easily implemented in the language of choice
- functionality is already implemented in another language, and it's too
expensive (time consuming, lack of know-how) to reimplement it in the
language of choice.

Often the third reason is the one for mixing C with C++. There are many
useful libraries in C around which you can just use from C++ without
changing it. BTW you can't do that with Java, you have to create
wrappers, build JNI extensions / learn CORBA or whatever overhead...

You mention C and C++ and Java above. I certainly hope each language
helped in your programming skills, to appreciate what each offers,
including new style of programming, etc, but to expect each to be
equal is not sound. And although I'd consider it a plus for a project

I don't expect them to be equal, the only mistake I made was, that I
expected C++ to be more equal to C than it actually is.

in a new language you were to do a job in, it would be naive
to expect you to just immediately be able to pick up and program
in it, to know all it's nooks and crannies, to be able to understand
its new style, to be able to be efficient in its idioms, etc etc etc.

I learned each of these three languages earlier, otherwise it would be
really hard. The first one was, btw, C++, in the basics and four years
ago. Never used it for real world projects until now, and now had to
recall some things and to extend my knowledge.
But I think that the programming style depends more on the programmer(s)
than on the language - you can write clean and easy to understand C code
as well as ugly and obscure Java - it's up to you .
The idioms of object oriented programming (hmm, "class oriented" fits
better) are quite equal between Java and C++. So, regarding this there
is not much new to me.

Therefore, I would expect you to explicitly pick up manuals and
tutorials on it, it all it means, and then give you the appropriate
time to get up to speed with it.

That's what I do .


Eckhard

 

[Greg Comeau]

Regarding the "Art of computer programming" I mean, that I just didn't
buy the book so far and can not judge about it's content. I heard that
it must be good, but I don't know.

I was referring to the claim that K&R is the best book for
teaching programming.

All three share the same elements, (where Java and C++ borrowed them
from C). You can not avoid trying to map your knowledge from one
language to another - that is the same as with real, spoken languages
. But your compiler will tell you that early, even more when you
compile with -Wall -Werror.

My compiler? Sorry, it does not use those options
The problem in this discussion in not the shared elements,
it's the key insights and significance of the differences!
Similarly, it's important to be able to cross knowledge,
but to not do it judiciously and within its limits is another story.

Always almost it can not. When you have such a case, it might have one
or many of the following reasons (there might be others as well):

- functionality is not available in the language of choice
- functionality can not be easily implemented in the language of choice
- functionality is already implemented in another language, and it's too
expensive (time consuming, lack of know-how) to reimplement it in the
language of choice.

Often the third reason is the one for mixing C with C++. There are many
useful libraries in C around which you can just use from C++ without
changing it. BTW you can't do that with Java, you have to create
wrappers, build JNI extensions / learn CORBA or whatever overhead...

If we are talking about the same thing, my experience differs in
what can and can not often occur. As to mixing, nobody is disputing
any of the possible issues.

I don't expect them to be equal, the only mistake I made was, that I
expected C++ to be more equal to C than it actually is.

But that's the point that (I think it was) Mike made, relating
to that each language is distinct, and shouldn't necessarily be
taught as the other.

I learned each of these three languages earlier, otherwise it would be
really hard. The first one was, btw, C++, in the basics and four years
ago. Never used it for real world projects until now, and now had to
recall some things and to extend my knowledge.
But I think that the programming style depends more on the programmer(s)
than on the language - you can write clean and easy to understand C code
as well as ugly and obscure Java - it's up to you .
The idioms of object oriented programming (hmm, "class oriented" fits
better) are quite equal between Java and C++. So, regarding this there
is not much new to me.

Lots of issues can and should be language neutral.
And yet it does matter.

 

[ecky-l]

I was referring to the claim that K&R is the best book for

teaching programming.

That was not claim, I just said that I haven't found another book for
any programming language that teaches _programming_ as good as K&R. The
book goes beyond the scope of teaching the C language, it handles
common principles and practices in programming and gives C
implementations as examples. It also gives insight into standard
library implementations, shows the basics of parsers (don't get me
wrong here, I mean the _basics_) and system interfaces, introduces
binary and sequencial search, tree structures and other things. Besides
that it gives very good exercises for kowledge-hungry readers. Not
everyone might rate all this this high, but I do.
There might be good books out there, maybe even better books for
teaching programming in general (thats why I mentioned "The art of
computer programming"), but I don't know them. I was surprised that a C
book is so good in teaching general aspects and idioms...

My compiler? Sorry, it does not use those options

The "you" was meant more in general... -Wall = show all warnings,
-Werror = treat warnings as errors. Your compiler surely has options
for that ;-)?

The problem in this discussion in not the shared elements,
it's the key insights and significance of the differences!

The key insights and significance of differences are important when it
comes to the details, yes. But there are general principles and idioms
of programming that apply to every language. Learning "programming" and
learning "a programming lanugage" are not the same. You can always
learn a new "programming language", but you have to understand
"programming" first.

But that's the point that (I think it was) Mike made, relating
to that each language is distinct, and shouldn't necessarily be
taught as the other.

That is absolutely right. But in the case of C and C++ there is one
fact that no one can discuss away: C is a subset of C++. If we like it
or not. That's why the languages are more similar than any other two
programming languages.
My point of view is: if he want's to learn "C++", he should really
learn C++ and not C. If he wants to learn "programming in C++", he
should also learn C++, and furthermore should also gain knowledge and
experience in problem solving, mathemathics, algorithms, data
structures, development tools and so on. If he wants to learn
"programming" in general and independent of any particular language, he
should aquire knowledge in the things I mentioned in the last sentence,
should do that in depth and put the language second. And for that, K&R
is IMHO not too bad - although there could be better books of which I
don't know.


Eckhard

 

[Greg Comeau]

That was not claim, I just said that I haven't found another book for
any programming language that teaches _programming_ as good as K&R.

It's pointless to get into a match when we are clearly both
talking about the same claim.

The
book goes beyond the scope of teaching the C language, it handles
common principles and practices in programming and gives C
implementations as examples. It also gives insight into standard
library implementations, shows the basics of parsers (don't get me
wrong here, I mean the _basics_) and system interfaces, introduces
binary and sequencial search, tree structures and other things. Besides
that it gives very good exercises for kowledge-hungry readers. Not
everyone might rate all this this high, but I do.
There might be good books out there, maybe even better books for
teaching programming in general (thats why I mentioned "The art of
computer programming"), but I don't know them. I was surprised that a C
book is so good in teaching general aspects and idioms...

Indeed. And not to detract from it, but there is also tons of
other issue not even delved into. For instance, have a look at
TC++PL. My point is not to say T++PL is "better", just that there
is many other issues, especially high level issues, which TCPL
does not even touch. Again, this does not negate the guidances
it does offer.

The "you" was meant more in general... -Wall = show all warnings,
-Werror = treat warnings as errors. Your compiler surely has options
for that ;-)?

In particular, for the benefit of those reading this who may
not know, that's what some of gcc's opptions are.
IOWs, that statements was: Some compiler can tell you more
when you turn on some of it's command line options, pragma's,
radio switches, etc. which ones depending upon the compiler.

The key insights and significance of differences are important when it
comes to the details, yes. But there are general principles and idioms
of programming that apply to every language. Learning "programming" and
learning "a programming lanugage" are not the same. You can always
learn a new "programming language", but you have to understand
"programming" first.


That is absolutely right. But in the case of C and C++ there is one
fact that no one can discuss away: C is a subset of C++. If we like it
or not. That's why the languages are more similar than any other two
programming languages.
My point of view is: if he want's to learn "C++", he should really
learn C++ and not C. If he wants to learn "programming in C++", he
should also learn C++, and furthermore should also gain knowledge and
experience in problem solving, mathemathics, algorithms, data
structures, development tools and so on. If he wants to learn
"programming" in general and independent of any particular language, he
should aquire knowledge in the things I mentioned in the last sentence,
should do that in depth and put the language second. And for that, K&R
is IMHO not too bad - although there could be better books of which I
don't know.

Minus nitpicks, something like that seemed to be the claims that
were being negated. Since it's not, then there is violent agreement.

 

[Y2J]

It's pointless to get into a match when we are clearly both
talking about the same claim.


Indeed. And not to detract from it, but there is also tons of
other issue not even delved into. For instance, have a look at
TC++PL. My point is not to say T++PL is "better", just that there
is many other issues, especially high level issues, which TCPL
does not even touch. Again, this does not negate the guidances
it does offer.


In particular, for the benefit of those reading this who may
not know, that's what some of gcc's opptions are.
IOWs, that statements was: Some compiler can tell you more
when you turn on some of it's command line options, pragma's,
radio switches, etc. which ones depending upon the compiler.


Minus nitpicks, something like that seemed to be the claims that
were being negated. Since it's not, then there is violent agreement.
--
Greg Comeau / Celebrating 20 years of Comeauity!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

A question for Greg Comeau:

I have worked through a book that teaches C++ and I am now working on a
second one by "Dietel", I have also been starting to read this book
titled "The Algoritm design manual".
My question to you is because you seem to have a good understanding
about the ebb and flow of the programming industry.

One of my friends works for a company in Canada called "Sasktel" as a
programmer, making 55,000 per year CDN. He was telling me that C++ is
not a computer language worth learning and would be a waste of my time
to even bother doing it. He told me to learn Java instead and in
particular learn about "Struts".

But my intuition tells me to continue with the C++ track and finish
what I had first started to learn and go from there afterwards, I
wanted to learn Assembly once finishing C++ and then possibly learning
J2EE. Am I being to close minded to this persons suggestions?

I mean I find it overwhelming to try to get a straight answer anywhere
I look, some articles say this or that language is the "One to learn"
and everything else is worthless. The only article I found of any use
was one talking about jumping from graphics program to graphics
program. It stated that none of them are important when it comes to
learning the "How to" of it all. It suggested learn just one really
well first and then it would be possible to learn another if it was
necessary.

From what I have read from "The Certified Ethical Hacker" course

materials, nothing is secure in itself absolutely. I have read various
articles with claims that C++ is the best possible language to learn
when it comes to building gaming software that run on UNIX servers. I
reasoned that a higher level language such as Java, J2EE or some
scripting language was good to learn, but for a chance to get a job in
the future as a programmer it would be very helpful to learn a
intermediate language such as C++.

I don't know what to think some days as I study the books, I start to
question myself on my choices and begin to wonder if I ought to give up
learning C++ and just learn some simpler scripting language instead?
But I just keep going and even though the more I learn the more I
sometimes feel lost and disorientated, somehow I still believe that it
might not be worth it in the short run, but in the long haul it will
payoff for me. Honestly what do you think about the learning path I
have set down and am following daily? Am I misleading myself and will I
end up out in the weeds in the end?