Are the two Qt books on the list really worth the effort, considering they cover old versions? The Qt 5 is already around for 4+ years.
Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
101–106 of 106 posts
Re: Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, those. The differences between standards aren't trivial, and often the older standards have to be maintained. 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 c…
So? Do you know by heart the differences between each Ruby, Python, C#, Perl ..... version?
You're reducing the argument here. qualitative arguments (true/false) over quantitative (to what degree).
Your argument is similar to: "Hitler is bad, but no one if perfect" - does that mean than anyone not perfect is equivalent to Hitler?
Moving on; to focus on python it's not difficult to know the handful of changes between, say, python 2.5 and 2.7, nor to understand them. py3 is different, and the fork caused a lot of controversy, there is still resistance to py3. There is a python-2-to-python-3 tool (could any such thing practically exist between C++ versions?), but it's not perfect.
A language like Java almost suffers from trying to remain backwards compatible, yes a) the feature is nonetheless appreciated, and java is heavily used and praised in 'enterprise' b) Java tends to make breaking changes rarely, and only when necessary - can the changes between C++ specs be described the same?
Re: Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, those. The differences between standards aren't trivial, and often the older standards have to be maintained. 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 c…
> and often the older standards have to be maintained exactly! what's wrong with that?
resources of multiple kinds are either split, or otherwise there is only the latest version gets it.
Re: Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
#104The best way to master C++, although perhaps not the most practical, is:
- Build a time machine
- Go back to 1988 and get hold of Bjarne's first book and a Zortech compiler
- Grow old, tinkering with and constantly keeping tabs on the language's evolution.
In this way, what seems to the modern neophyte like a massive indigestible meal is actually presented as a procession of smaller courses, most of which are an improvement on the ones preceding.
Re: Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
#105I 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 think you'd like Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo.
It's by far my favourite C++ book and it's nice and short.
One drawback may be it's age; it's 17 years old. On the other hand it was way ahead of it's time and good writing doesn't get old.
(ps. I quite like Stroustrup's books but to each their own)
Re: Master C++ Programming with Open-Source Books
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make the language easy to use without any mental burden? But you do realize programming is not easy, especially when you're aiming for high performance. How can you make a language easy to use "without any mental burden"? Programming is hard, programming well and with performance in mind is even more so. Some things you just can't magically make easy.
You can program with "performance in mind" in C and the big difference will be that the problem itself will be the obstruction, not the language. In C++, you fight with the language first and then face the problem.
How can that be true, if C++ is (almost) a superset of C? Surely you can do anything in C++ identically to C, in the worst case scenario.