Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.offered,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c-cat,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,alt.syntax.tactical,comp.lang.misc,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!swidir.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!warwick!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!brockman From: brockman@netcom.com (daniel brockman) Subject: Re: Beginner to C/C++ looking for some good books Message-ID: <brockmanDE5u28.5Lr@netcom.com> Organization: Life, Liberty, Love, Money and Art References: <40b4i2$egf@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <brockmanDDLJDL.2IJ@netcom.com> <41alha$b1g@cisunix1.dfci.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 05:32:31 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: brockman@netcom7.netcom.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au misc.jobs.offered:203891 comp.lang.c:111984 comp.lang.c++:122854 comp.object:31390 comp.lang.eiffel:9146 alt.syntax.tactical:951 comp.lang.misc:17242 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:160 In article <41alha$b1g@cisunix1.dfci.harvard.edu> gotd@jimmy.harvard.edu (Godfrey Degamo) writes: >daniel brockman (brockman@netcom.com) wrote: >: In article <40b4i2$egf@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> psilocyn@ix.netcom.com (Jeff W. ) writes: >: >I've been trying to learn C++ on my own with the online books that come >: >with Borland C++ 4.5, but I'm having trouble understanding them. So I > >: C++ is philosophically unsound. it is nonsense. no one can understand >: nonsense. Don't worry about it. > >: db > > >Why is C++ philosophically unsound? I am planning on learning it, if >they ever standardize the language. (Have they done so yet?) To work with it, you must be zealous. Otherwise you will lose interest. If you are a zealot, then you will want to make an object of everything, and C++ encourages this. Making an object of everything implies you will create types (classes) before having historical precedent. Thus you will create types having little value. The creation of types requires creation of operators for combination of the type with itself and with other types. It's all wuite unnecessary, given that you could have written the program in C using existing types and (probably) fewer lines of code. It's standardized. > >But, if it is unsound, then maybe I should concentrate my efforts on >algorithms and expanding my data structure libraries. Yes. That is my recommendation. Use perl. or, if you must be object-oriented, tehn use Visual Basic. With these you can be creative, useful, productive, even valuable. > >-Godfrey Degamo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Brockman San Francisco brockman@netcom.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------