21–30 of 106 posts
Thank you so much, I have one question though, Is there any pdf version for "The Boost C++ Libraries"? I really need it.
Theres a lot of good stuff in there..
Just get: src/base, src/ipc, src/net (and something else you are interested in) and you are good to go
Can you ever really master C++? I've been at it more than 20 years and I'm still delighted to learn new things about the language and the library.
On the other hand, people like Scott Meyers have spent their lifetime and careers explaining its intricacies, without solving any real problems.
Can you ever really master C++? I've been at it more than 20 years and I'm still delighted to learn new things about the language and the library.
It's such a complex language brimming with idiosyncrasies that I'd be inclined to really test anyone claiming to be a master. The standard is one thing, then there's the compiler you're using...
I'd sooner master rust, which seems to have a lot of buzz around it. the world has needed a low-level prog-lang that's less painful than C/C++ for a while, rust may have enough merit to displace a lot of C/C++ dev - I just hope it gets well standardised, in such a way that C++ isn't.
It's the worst programming book I have ever read! It's introduction made me hate C++ and if I didn't had to work with other C++ libraries, I would have avoided C++. The text is full of bloat, for the lack of better word. It's the opposite of crisp writing.
I read some good language books like K&R's C, Joe Armstrong's Erlang book. I loved them and I thought this would be in same league. It's not.
I would like to learn C++ systematically, like not cut-and-paste stuff. "How to think like a computer scientist: C++" seems like a good book. I read the book "How to think like a computer scientist", which is an introduction to programming in Python. I think that would be a good start. Is it a good book for experienced programmers wanting to learn C++?
To people wanting to learn C++, please avoid Stoustrop's book like Plague.
EDIT: I read "The C++ programming language 4th edition" which explains C++11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C%2B%2B_Programming_Langua...
I have some C programming experience and I wanted to learn C++ so I bought and started reading Stoustrop's book, thinking it's the K&R of C++. It's the worst programming book I have ever read! It's introduction made me hate C++ and if I didn't had to work with other C++ libraries, I would have avoided C++. The text is full of bloat, for the lack of better word. It's the opposite of crisp writing. I read some good lan…
I have some C programming experience and I wanted to learn C++ so I bought and started reading Stoustrop's book, thinking it's the K&R of C++. It's the worst programming book I have ever read! It's introduction made me hate C++ and if I didn't had to work with other C++ libraries, I would have avoided C++. The text is full of bloat, for the lack of better word. It's the opposite of crisp writing. I read some good lan…
Would you please define which of his books you read? Just saying "Stoustrop's book" doesn't really help anybody. He wrote a few books, as you can see here: http://www.stroustrup.com/books.html
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
[1] https://theboostcpplibraries.com/
[2] http://greenteapress.com/thinkcpp/index.html
[3] http://opendatastructures.org/ods-cpp/About_this_document.html
[4] http://www.network-theory.co.uk/about.htmlEarlier quoted context omitted.
It has a few standards, which is the problem. Furthermore, I'm not just talking about the existence of a standard, but the complexity of the standard (C++is v. big), and also how much that standard restricts, and hence results in conformal, predictable code.
> It has a few standards, which is the problem. You mean C++03, C++11, C++14, C++17? Or something else? If you mean those, I fail to see the problem. The language isn't dead, so it's not static, and it evolves over time. Publishing a new standard every few years is the only way to keep all compilers aligned, rather than each going off in its own "with extra features!" direction.
The standard already has lots of features, including a turing-complete sub-language.
It is difficult to write code to standard (nothing that works, but is undefined either), that is safe, no segfaults, memory issue, secure, and all within a practical budget/timeline.
Just being able to reason about the code more easily helps, or make strong assumptions (e.g. about safety).
I have some C programming experience and I wanted to learn C++ so I bought and started reading Stoustrop's book, thinking it's the K&R of C++. It's the worst programming book I have ever read! It's introduction made me hate C++ and if I didn't had to work with other C++ libraries, I would have avoided C++. The text is full of bloat, for the lack of better word. It's the opposite of crisp writing. I read some good lan…