Stupid C++ ?

[Greg Comeau]

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.

Accto the naysayers, the demise of C++ has continued for ~20 years.
Obviously they are wrong. Can C++ continue so strong for another
~20 years? Who knows. But today to say that C++ is not worth
learning doesn't make sense. It's still strong.

Now, does it make sense to learn something else instead?
It could, I don't know your situation.
Also, does it make sense to learn something else at some point?
Always.

You've mentioned both C++ and Java: both markets are lucrative.
Somebody saying otherwise is the one who is closed minded.

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++.

There is certainly many C++ jobs. Whether they are for you,
are available in your geographic area, your sought industry, etc
is another story.

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?

I don't think you are misleading yourself. Furthermore, I think
it's ok to a certain point to question yourself. Generally speaking
you should be ok both in the short and long term with C++.
Specifically speaking, you probably don't offer enough details
for us to access. That said, something that is leaping out
between your lines is that you are not sure if your current
path is a complete mistake. That's the feeling I get, correct
me if I'm wrong. If that is one of your underlying concerns,
I just don't see it as a legitimate one. The C++ industry
is still strong. Competition will always come and go,
and competition will always come and stay. I think that's fine.
I suspect you're seeking this as black and white right now,
but it will be multiple choice, as it has always been.
Go carve yourself something good.

 

[Robert J. Hansen]

While Greg's response is certainly worth reading, there are another
couple of dimensions to this question which haven't been looked at
quite yet.

Yes, it's probably true that there's more market demand today for Java
programmers than for C++ programmers. This is maybe indicative of
something, or maybe indicative of nothing, and in the end it doesn't
really matter. Doing something just because it's marketable is a
recipe for modest financial success at the cost of personal disaster.
Far better to do something because you enjoy it _and_ because you can
get a job doing it.

Insofar as the articles you've read saying this-or-that language is the
one to learn and everything else is worthless, consider Bjarne
Stroustrup's words: "I would consider belief in the One True Way to be
a childhood disease, if I didn't know so many adults who suffer from
it." (I'm paraphrasing slightly--the quote is somewhere in TC++PL.)

You'll always find people who will loudly and with great certainty
proclaim what's Absolute Truth. Many of these people work as
technology pundits. Take it all with a large grain of salt.

So. For the learning path you've set for yourself, my best advice is
to follow the stuff you find interesting and fun, and worry later about
whether or not it's marketable. If you're going down the path of C++,
well, hey--great. Most of us here think it's worth learning, and would
happy to walk down the path with you.

 

[Y2J]

While Greg's response is certainly worth reading, there are another
couple of dimensions to this question which haven't been looked at
quite yet.

Yes, it's probably true that there's more market demand today for Java
programmers than for C++ programmers. This is maybe indicative of
something, or maybe indicative of nothing, and in the end it doesn't
really matter. Doing something just because it's marketable is a
recipe for modest financial success at the cost of personal disaster.
Far better to do something because you enjoy it _and_ because you can
get a job doing it.

Insofar as the articles you've read saying this-or-that language is the
one to learn and everything else is worthless, consider Bjarne
Stroustrup's words: "I would consider belief in the One True Way to be
a childhood disease, if I didn't know so many adults who suffer from
it." (I'm paraphrasing slightly--the quote is somewhere in TC++PL.)

You'll always find people who will loudly and with great certainty
proclaim what's Absolute Truth. Many of these people work as
technology pundits. Take it all with a large grain of salt.

So. For the learning path you've set for yourself, my best advice is
to follow the stuff you find interesting and fun, and worry later about
whether or not it's marketable. If you're going down the path of C++,
well, hey--great. Most of us here think it's worth learning, and would
happy to walk down the path with you.

I had read this article by Charles Petzold and he said " The real
objective is for us to become faster programmers, which also means that
it's cheapening our labor."

I suppose this might be one reason that people are geared towards
moving up to higher level programming languages, to be faster is to be
the one who in the end might find employment in the field.

Personally I don't know if I agree with this philosophy myself, so many
things claim to give you the upper hand when it comes to something. But
I think it is better to be slow and steady than fast and sloppy when it
comes to doing anything worthwhile in life.

In the years gone past I have seen many people who had pursued various
certifications in the computer industry only to still not be able to
secure a job in spite of all their certifications.

I find it somewhat disturbing to see that people pour so many of their
financial resources and time into something that in the end will yield
little to no results. I had asked people I know that have learned
programming and I have found that many of them are quite arrogant when
it comes to giving any useful advice.

Right now I am using visual studio 6.0 to work through my programming
book, I have no idea what 90% of the features are used for. But I am
learning on a daily basis some things that are new. I had studied a
little about algorithms apart from the two I had learned of in my last
book which are the "bubble sort and quick sort".

In the book I am now working on Dietell C++, I find it to be helpful in
teaching various ways that syntax is actually done and why it is done
that way. I had looked through the message board archieves and took
note of various books that where being suggested reading and have
secured electronic copies of these books.

I thank both Greg Comeau and Robert J. Hansen for their input to my
questions I had asked of them. To be honest it was the first time I
asked a question and actually had recieved some encouraging coments on
what I had asked.

I had asked this one guy who "proclaims" he is a master programmer last
week, he had all kinds of reasons why studying algoritms is a complete
waste of time, but as I had walked away I just "took it with a grain of
salt" like what was mentioned previously.

I don't want to get caught up in a "fad" with all the rest of the
lemmings running headlong into the abyss. I have been learning the
basics about "Psuedocode" and eventually I will be learning "UML" from
the book I am working on right now.

I know that C++ might be a little more challenging to learn than other
programming languages out there, just because something is challenging
is not a valid reason to not work through it. Like I had read in one
posting, someone had said, "There is no such thing as a free lunch".

I had felt better after having a couple of people who postively
commented on learning C++ and I suppose that is all I had needed to
hear, perhaps I will not find a job as a C++ programmer, but then again
maybe I will also. When I had went to technical school in 1989 in
Vancouver for a one year network technician course, the teacher there
had said, "Do what you love, and eventually you can't help but make
money doing it!"

That has always stuck in my mind as a motivator in the hard times, I
think ethusiasm might be the one ingredient that is needed to help a
person to success in any endevor they set off to accomplish.

It would seem to me that there are an awful lot of software engineers
as opossed to real programmers, therefore a programmer can make a far
better software engineer, than a software engineer can fill the role of
an actual computer programmer.

I look at things as if what I learn today will in some part be useful
to me in the future or will it not? There are an awful lot of books
out there today for sure, so many to choose from it is overwhelming for
someone like myself at times.

I had read this book in 1999 (in part) about Java and when I had
realized that a person could actually build software on their home
computer I felt as if I had died and gone to heaven. I mean, I didn't
know how software was actually created even though I had been through
technical school. I just learned about how to engineer software and
really nothing more.

Ever since I had come to understand that a person could build programs,
I was deeply intrigued by it all; but then came the reality of learning
a suitable language that would in time help me to understand how to
realize the ideas I had about building various types of software.

I have tried different languages, VB, Java, Torque game engine, and
then I had to get real with myself and learn C++ as it would seem it
might be the only language that is flexible enough for a person to be
able to build software the way they want to build it.

At any rate I am grateful for the input I have recieved from various
people both the good and the not so good feed back. I am glad that was
able to put a question out there and in cyber space someone returned
the with decent answer.

Peace, Jaret

 

[Marcus Kwok]

I had asked this one guy who "proclaims" he is a master programmer last
week, he had all kinds of reasons why studying algoritms is a complete
waste of time, but as I had walked away I just "took it with a grain of
salt" like what was mentioned previously.

Good for you. As I see it, algorithms are the very basis of computer
science, and programming is just translating these algorithms into a
language the computer can understand. Programming is easy; it's getting
the algorithms right that can be tricky.

I wonder what kind of "reasons" he would have for not studying
algorithms.

 

[Greg Comeau]

...Programming is easy; ...

??

 

[Marcus Kwok]

??

"Programming is easy; it's getting the algorithms right that can be
tricky."

Sorry, that comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.


With a sufficiently detailed algorithm, translating it to code
"should be" fairly trivial.

 

[Sebastian Wiesner]

Once upon a time (Dienstag, 15. November 2005 19:37) Marcus Kwok wrote
some very nice things

"Programming is easy; it's getting the algorithms right that can be
tricky."

Sorry, that comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.


With a sufficiently detailed algorithm, translating it to code
"should be" fairly trivial.

If it is trivial, why are there so many people posting their questions
here? It does not seem to be as easy as you say.

 

[Greg Comeau]

"Programming is easy; it's getting the algorithms right that can be
tricky."

Sorry, that comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.


With a sufficiently detailed algorithm, translating it to code
"should be" fairly trivial.

"should be' ??

 

[Marcus Kwok]

Once upon a time (Dienstag, 15. November 2005 19:37) Marcus Kwok wrote
some very nice things

If it is trivial, why are there so many people posting their questions
here? It does not seem to be as easy as you say.

Sebastian,
First, let me apologize for the misinterpretation. My comment was meant
to be taken as a light-hearted joke. I did not intend to offend
anybody, or to come across as arrogant.

That being said, the way I look at it, "computer science" (CS) involves
such things as language design, data structure analysis, algorithms,
design methodologies, etc.; and "programming" is translating the efforts
of computer science into a language that the computer can understand.
(I mentioned "language design"; I would say that "language design" would
be CS, but "using the language to write a program" would be
programming). I consider them to be separate, though related, concepts.
I would say that "programming" is a component of CS, but not necessarily
essential to CS.

Thinking abstractly, one can envision a brilliant Computer Scientist who
knows nothing about programming because he doesn't know any specific
languages; he invents fantastic data structures and algorithms, but
describes them all in pseudocode. On the other hand, you can imagine
someone who, given a program specification and design, can code it up
nicely, but who lacks the skill to help with the design.

To become a good "programmer", one should become proficient in both
"computer science" and "programming".

In my experience, the CS is the tricky part, but once you have a good
design that takes advantage of intelligent data structures and
algorithms, then programming it is usually pretty straightforward.

Many of the questions here are asking, "What is wrong with my program?
Why doesn't it do what I want?" The answer is usually some subtle logic
error, hence an algorithm error, hence, CS and not "programming", per se.


(I hope I didn't paint myself into a corner over a subtle joke)

 

[Sebastian Wiesner]

Once upon a time (Dienstag, 15. November 2005 22:53) Marcus Kwok wrote
some very nice things

Sebastian,
First, let me apologize for the misinterpretation. My comment was meant
to be taken as a light-hearted joke. I did not intend to offend
anybody, or to come across as arrogant.

Marcus,
first let me make clear, that you did neither offend me nor did you come
across as arrogant. I am sorry, if my comment did sound as if you had
done this.
I just did not understand, what made you say "Programming is easy" and I
wanted to point out, that there are many people, that seem to have to
cope with a great deal of problems, when trying to program. But your
posting was clarifying.

That being said, the way I look at it, "computer science" (CS) involves
such things as language design, data structure analysis, algorithms,
design methodologies, etc.; and "programming" is translating the efforts
of computer science into a language that the computer can understand.
(I mentioned "language design"; I would say that "language design" would
be CS, but "using the language to write a program" would be
programming). I consider them to be separate, though related, concepts.
I would say that "programming" is a component of CS, but not necessarily
essential to CS.
ack.


Thinking abstractly, one can envision a brilliant Computer Scientist who
knows nothing about programming because he doesn't know any specific
languages; he invents fantastic data structures and algorithms, but
describes them all in pseudocode. On the other hand, you can imagine
someone who, given a program specification and design, can code it up
nicely, but who lacks the skill to help with the design.

To become a good "programmer", one should become proficient in both
"computer science" and "programming".

Of course, but my experience shows me, that people are often too much
focused to one part and forgot to think about the other.
This leads to good code implementing a horribly bad designed data model,
or into a great data model translated into "bad" code.

In my experience, the CS is the tricky part, but once you have a good
design that takes advantage of intelligent data structures and
algorithms, then programming it is usually pretty straightforward.

I must agree that computer science is a really tricky part, but I have
also had problems when translating a quite useful algorithm into *good*
code.
You will always be able to translate your data model and your algorithms
into almost anything, but translating them into *good* code, is the
actual problem. That part be really tricky.

Many of the questions here are asking, "What is wrong with my program?
Why doesn't it do what I want?" The answer is usually some subtle logic
error, hence an algorithm error, hence, CS and not "programming", per
se.

Yes, but you also find many questions on how to translate a "data model"
into *good* C++ code.

(I hope I didn't paint myself into a corner over a subtle joke)

No, you did not, and let me apologize again, if my posting made you think
so.

 

[Marcus Kwok]

Once upon a time (Dienstag, 15. November 2005 22:53) Marcus Kwok wrote
some very nice things


I must agree that computer science is a really tricky part, but I have
also had problems when translating a quite useful algorithm into *good*
code.
You will always be able to translate your data model and your algorithms
into almost anything, but translating them into *good* code, is the
actual problem. That part be really tricky.


Yes, but you also find many questions on how to translate a "data model"
into *good* C++ code.

OK, I'll accept that. I guess since I've only been in the "real world"
for a little over a year now, and my projects have only been of medium
complexity so far, I jumped to a premature conclusion. Most of my
issues at work have been dealing with old C code that has been around
since the 1970's, so simplifying/redesigning them to take advantage of
newer language features has been the bulk of my job.

No, you did not, and let me apologize again, if my posting made you think
so.

Thanks.

 

[Y2J]

The kinds of reasons he had, were that they are already inlcuded in the
classes that he works with and there was no need to bother trying to
understand them for that reason.
I know C++ has an Algorithm header file, but it doesn't make any sense
for me to not learn about what algorithms do because how will I know if
I am using the best one for what I am building?

Learning about algoritms I have found is like learning chess with chess
master which I have for the PS2, it has these puzzles and asks you to
pick the best choice for attaining a certain goal. Sometimes I find it
to be a real "brain burner" trying to figure out which is the right one
to choose, but it teaches me to not be inflexible in my thinking and
try to keep it as pliable as possible.

Programming for me at this point is not easy, I make little charts and
graphs to remember the many different syntax's and keywords. I got all
the control structures pretty much understood, but now I am trying to
learn about things like pointers.

Which seem relatively easy in theory, but it practice can seem (more
than a little) confusing. One thing I realized was that I was having
trouble understanding was the difference between variable names and the
values witin those names being passed back and forth like a ping pong
ball.

I totally figured out the "bubble sort" algorithm, but the "quick sort"
algoritm is still somewhat perplexing and I get a little lost trying to
follow the values and get confused a little more with the pointers and
where they are pointing to.

I can see the complexity of C++ is very diverse in its and perhaps it
is because of this that I find at times I get a little confused what is
going on in the source code. I don't know if it is possible to learn
the C++ language to the point that a person could actually pick up a
page(s) of code and read it as if they where reading a book?

I hope this is possible one day for me to do in some small part, I did
try to look at some code libraries on the net to get a better
understanding about the logical flow of it all, but it seemed to me
that I ought to swim like hell back to the more shallow part of the
pool where I could paddle around for awhile.

I had read an article on visual studio net where this person had said
that it is good, but knowing the how to write a program from scratch is
much better in the long run. They had said that it keeps a person from
developing and individual style of writing code and curbs creative
thinking, does anyone agree with this point?

What really makes an expert programmer? Is it their style or is it
their tools that they use? Or perhaps it might be the style in which
they use their particular tools to compliment their personal
preferences? I don't know as I am far from being an "Expert" I am sure
the more I come to know, the more I will come to understand I actually
know very little. Any input would be apprehiated, thank you for your
comments thus far as I find them to be encouraging as I work my way
through learning how to go from concept to code and from code to a new
concept.

 

[Y2J]

The kinds of reasons he had, were that they are already inlcuded in the
classes that he works with and there was no need to bother trying to
understand them for that reason.
I know C++ has an Algorithm header file, but it doesn't make any sense
for me to not learn about what algorithms do because how will I know if
I am using the best one for what I am building?

Learning about algoritms I have found is like learning chess with chess
master which I have for the PS2, it has these puzzles and asks you to
pick the best choice for attaining a certain goal. Sometimes I find it
to be a real "brain burner" trying to figure out which is the right one
to choose, but it teaches me to not be inflexible in my thinking and
try to keep it as pliable as possible.

Programming for me at this point is not easy, I make little charts and
graphs to remember the many different syntax's and keywords. I got all
the control structures pretty much understood, but now I am trying to
learn about things like pointers.

Which seem relatively easy in theory, but it practice can seem (more
than a little) confusing. One thing I realized was that I was having
trouble understanding was the difference between variable names and the
values witin those names being passed back and forth like a ping pong
ball.

I totally figured out the "bubble sort" algorithm, but the "quick sort"
algoritm is still somewhat perplexing and I get a little lost trying to
follow the values and get confused a little more with the pointers and
where they are pointing to.

I can see the complexity of C++ is very diverse in its and perhaps it
is because of this that I find at times I get a little confused what is
going on in the source code. I don't know if it is possible to learn
the C++ language to the point that a person could actually pick up a
page(s) of code and read it as if they where reading a book?

I hope this is possible one day for me to do in some small part, I did
try to look at some code libraries on the net to get a better
understanding about the logical flow of it all, but it seemed to me
that I ought to swim like hell back to the more shallow part of the
pool where I could paddle around for awhile.

I had read an article on visual studio net where this person had said
that it is good, but knowing the how to write a program from scratch is
much better in the long run. They had said that it keeps a person from
developing and individual style of writing code and curbs creative
thinking, does anyone agree with this point?

What really makes an expert programmer? Is it their style or is it
their tools that they use? Or perhaps it might be the style in which
they use their particular tools to compliment their personal
preferences? I don't know as I am far from being an "Expert" I am sure
the more I come to know, the more I will come to understand I actually
know very little. Any input would be apprehiated, thank you for your
comments thus far as I find them to be encouraging as I work my way
through learning how to go from concept to code and from code to a new
concept.

 

[Marcus Kwok]

The kinds of reasons he had, were that they are already inlcuded in the
classes that he works with and there was no need to bother trying to
understand them for that reason.
Ugh.

I know C++ has an Algorithm header file, but it doesn't make any sense
for me to not learn about what algorithms do because how will I know if
I am using the best one for what I am building?

Exactly. For example, say you have a list of numbers stored in an array
(or std::vector if you prefer), and the list is known to be sorted. To
search for a particular number, you could use the naive linear search by
looking at every element until you find it; or you could realize that it
was sorted, therefore you would be able to perform a binary search,
which would on average improve the search time considerably, especially
for large lists. The data is the same, but a change in algorithm can
have significant impacts.

In fact, when optimizing programs, the biggest gains are usually made by
improving the algorithms or data structures used; small tweaks (called
"peephole optimization" by some), such as replacing (2 * x) with (x +
x), usually do not make a significant difference and make the code
harder to understand. Really, when you write code, you should really be
writing it so that it can be easily understood by another person; you're
not really writing it for the computer. And besides, compilers are good
enough now that it can probably optimize the code way better than most
programmers would be able to anyway. There is the quote (often
attributed to Donald Knuth), "Premature optimization is the root of all
evil." http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000084.html for more
info.

Learning about algoritms I have found is like learning chess with chess
master which I have for the PS2, it has these puzzles and asks you to
pick the best choice for attaining a certain goal. Sometimes I find it
to be a real "brain burner" trying to figure out which is the right one
to choose, but it teaches me to not be inflexible in my thinking and
try to keep it as pliable as possible.

You seem to have the right attitude. Computer Science can be seen as
somewhat of an art, and a certain amount of creativity can go a long
way when you are designing programs/algorithms/data structures.

I can see the complexity of C++ is very diverse in its and perhaps it
is because of this that I find at times I get a little confused what is
going on in the source code. I don't know if it is possible to learn
the C++ language to the point that a person could actually pick up a
page(s) of code and read it as if they where reading a book?

If the code is well-written, then I would say, "yes". Of course, even
for an expert, code that is not well-written can be just as cryptic.
For examples in C, you can check out the International Obfuscated C Code
Contest (IOCCC, http://www.ioccc.org/ )

I hope this is possible one day for me to do in some small part, I did
try to look at some code libraries on the net to get a better
understanding about the logical flow of it all, but it seemed to me
that I ought to swim like hell back to the more shallow part of the
pool where I could paddle around for awhile.

Yes, don't bite off more than you can chew. Learning at your own pace
can be extremely effective, as long as it doesn't cause you to become
lazy and dawdle around (someone else made this same point earlier
somewhere, maybe not in this thread).

I had read an article on visual studio net where this person had said
that it is good, but knowing the how to write a program from scratch is
much better in the long run. They had said that it keeps a person from
developing and individual style of writing code and curbs creative
thinking, does anyone agree with this point?

Are you talking about the article, "Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?" by
Charles Petzold?
http://charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html

He does make a pretty good point:

Some observers of our digital lives have noticed the way in which
certain applications cause a user to think in very rigid prescribed
ways, and these are not good. One of the biggest offenders, of
course, is PowerPoint. Start putting what you want to communicate in
PowerPoint slides, and everything you want to say is ordered into
half a dozen bullet items.

and then he goes into how IntelliSense and Visual Studio do the same
thing to a programmer: IntelliSense encourages bottom-up design in
order to use it to its full potential (so that it knows about the names
you want to use), and VS will auto-generate considerable amounts of
code that may not have the best design, but then people see it and
assume that it's the "best" way to do it, so they start conforming to
the same practices.

What really makes an expert programmer? Is it their style or is it
their tools that they use? Or perhaps it might be the style in which
they use their particular tools to compliment their personal
preferences?

I would say it's probably closer to the last statement. I think the
main thing is that an expert knows how to use his tools properly and
efficiently, and is able to select the appropriate tool for the right
job. In other words, to mutilate a common saying, they know that when
they have a hammer in their hand, then not necessarily everything is a
nail, so they should go find their screwdriver.

I am sure
the more I come to know, the more I will come to understand I actually
know very little.

Very wise words.
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."

Maybe I should have remembered this before making my other remark that
"programming is easy"

Any input would be apprehiated, thank you for your
comments thus far as I find them to be encouraging as I work my way
through learning how to go from concept to code and from code to a new
concept.

I'm glad you seem to be enjoying learning how to program. I hope you
find it as rewarding as I have.

 

[Greg Comeau]

Once upon a time (Dienstag, 15. November 2005 22:53) Marcus Kwok wrote
some very nice things

I must agree that computer science is a really tricky part, but I have
also had problems when translating a quite useful algorithm into *good*
code.
You will always be able to translate your data model and your algorithms
into almost anything, but translating them into *good* code, is the
actual problem. That part be really tricky.

"Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied
mathematics; the poorer mathematicians had better remain pure
mathematicians." -- Edsger Dijkstra

 

[Y2J]

I had read the various links that you had included and yes I was
refering to the article written by Charles Petzold whether visual
studio rots the mind? I had also read several postings as I had
subscribed to get them emailed to me directly and thought it would be a
great way to start the day out.

One of my concerns is that I had read the what is "on topic" as opposed
to what is "off topic", I had to consider if my trivial remarks and
questions are appropriate to be asked here? I don't want to come across
as being a waster of people's time or taking advantage of their
consideration that they may give to my questions.

By reading the postings that were answered I am getting a better idea
of what is appropriate and what is not. I don't expect people to "do my
work" for me either as it seems ridiculous to ask such a thing and then
think of yourself as a programmer.

I know some of the things I talk of might seem quite "juvenile" to the
people who answer the questions here, but I am starting out in learning
C++ and will read through the most fequently asked questions before I
take up anyones time asking something that is described there already.

I thank you for the input I have recieved thus far, I don't actually
know anyone else who is familar with C++ where I live. So forgive me
for asking small questions about something that is so much more than
small.

Peace, Jaret

 

[Y2J]

I had read the various links that you had included and yes I was
refering to the article written by Charles Petzold whether visual
studio rots the mind? I had also read several postings as I had
subscribed to get them emailed to me directly and thought it would be a
great way to start the day out.

One of my concerns is that I had read the what is "on topic" as opposed
to what is "off topic", I had to consider if my trivial remarks and
questions are appropriate to be asked here? I don't want to come across
as being a waster of people's time or taking advantage of their
consideration that they may give to my questions.

By reading the postings that were answered I am getting a better idea
of what is appropriate and what is not. I don't expect people to "do my
work" for me either as it seems ridiculous to ask such a thing and then
think of yourself as a programmer.

I know some of the things I talk of might seem quite "juvenile" to the
people who answer the questions here, but I am starting out in learning
C++ and will read through the most fequently asked questions before I
take up anyones time asking something that is described there already.

I thank you for the input I have recieved thus far, I don't actually
know anyone else who is familar with C++ where I live. So forgive me
for asking small questions about something that is so much more than
small.

Peace, Jaret