32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone • Hacker News Board

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#51

Post by DennisP » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 1:39 AM UTC

blub wrote: post #23

K&R is overrated, just like many "cult" books are. I read C: ARM by Harbison and Steele and after trying to read K&R I stopped because I wasn't getting anything new out of it. Edit: Further proof of this is the blind downvoting typical of critiques of "cult" books. K&R just happened to be there at the right time and it was the first programming book for many people. Their nostalgia makes them think that it is a very…

I'm reading it for the first time right now, and without nostalgia, at 100 pages in I'm very impressed.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#52

Post by magoghm » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 1:40 AM UTC

MikeTaylor wrote: post #3

Dellort wrote: post #2

Very nice semantics, but hideous syntax. Pascal had it done right with a more linear declaration syntax. C looks like lisp in a bad way if you make slightly nontrivial declarations. Of course to make matters worse somebody went on and made C++, which must be the most hideous language ever to evolve, possibly because its creator borrowed heavily ideas from how his native natural language Danish was formed; It is mostl…

C's syntax is much more terse than Pascal's; whether that makes it better or worse is open to discussion. begin...end or {...} ? I would argue that Pascal's syntax is easier to learn, but that C's is easier to use once learned. And since I spend more time using languages than learning them, the latter is more important to me.

In the 80's we used to say: "You can't compare Pascal to C. It's like comparing a bicycle with training wheels to a ten-speed racing cycle."

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#53

Post by flatline » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 2:09 AM UTC

obsaysditto wrote: post #5

The first and probably only programming book I've read completely.

"Learning Perl" was the first one I read all the way through. I read most of K&R, it was a similar experience, many years after reading the Perl book.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#54

Post by kunqiana » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 2:47 AM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #46

How does it compare to C Programming: A Modern Approach, by K.N. King? That was great for learning C. Very readable.

It was used for my programming class, however the professor recommends K.R for experienced students who are new to C.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#55

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 3:04 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #9

There is, essentially, nothing to be known about C beyond what is in this book. If you can read those 272 pages, and understand them all, then you are well on the way to being a C wizard. Say what? This is like saying that once you know what all the commands in Illustrator do, you're well on your way to being a professional illustrator. The reason that K&R is so small is that so much of C programming happens outside/…

[deleted]

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#56

Post by l0nwlf » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 3:56 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #10

somebear wrote: post #7

The thing that has always struck me about K&R is that it contains no fluff. You get so much information for each paragraph, that you often have to re-read them to get all the information contained therein. Probably the programming book I've used the most. In contrast, the C++ programming language is a mouthful, and ended up being just another pretty book on my bookshelf.

Stroustrop is, or at least in its later editions became, a pretty indespensable C++ book. Most of the topics in C++ are best addressed by it. Unfortunately, C++ is a nightmare of a language, so there are many, many topics, and you don't read it cover-to-cover any more than a cook would read New Pro Chef or McGee cover-to-cover.

I donated mine copy of Stroustrop to one of my classmate with whom I was not having good terms.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#57

Post by l0nwlf » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 3:59 AM UTC

K&R is not only about C. It is about programming practices in general and is content-packed. So much power in so thin book, just like C itself, a language with only 32 keywords.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#58

Post by _delirium » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 4:29 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #15

It was written in a different era where publishers weren't inflating page counts for sales.

It doesn't hurt that the total number of constructs in K&R C is really quite small. I'm not sure there are any current languages with comparably few constructs; maybe Arc. Even Scheme is bigger, at least for a recent version (say, R6RS).

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#59

Post by drallison » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 5:38 AM UTC

K&R's C Programming Language is like the language: spare and elegant. It is not a beginner's book and does not coddle the reader. It is a book for programmers. And it reads as well today as it did 32 years ago.

Re: 32 years on, K&R's "The C Programming Language" still stands alone

#60

Post by basugasubaku » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 6:09 AM UTC

blub wrote: post #23

K&R is overrated, just like many "cult" books are. I read C: ARM by Harbison and Steele and after trying to read K&R I stopped because I wasn't getting anything new out of it. Edit: Further proof of this is the blind downvoting typical of critiques of "cult" books. K&R just happened to be there at the right time and it was the first programming book for many people. Their nostalgia makes them think that it is a very…

It's not surprising that you wouldn't get anything new from K&R after finishing H&S. H&S is intended to be a reference manual whereas K&R is more of a tutorial (that doubles as a reference manual, especially before ANSI C was created). I think few people would attempt to learn C by reading H&S.

Personally I adore both books. I do find H&S more useful particularly because it is more comprehensive and up to date (very good coverage of C99, not just a listing of changes in some appendix but has discussions about C99 throughout the book).