11–20 of 135 posts
This is a great list of books - at least, I found the same ones were the most excellent. Also I really learnt a lot from 21st Century C (The author here said they wanted to stick to C89, which is fair enough.) >To read great C code will help tremendously. But then he just gives examples of games I don't know and am not really interested in. Anyone know some non-game C that is, I suppose, well-known and wonderfully-wr…
I disagree with this comment: "No website is as good as a good book. And no good book is as good as a disassembly output."
There are many websites today that are excellent. And there are many websites that cover obscure topics not found in books.
Finally, I think it's important to move past C89 to at least C99. I realize in 2011 (the date of this post), that was less feasible. But today, there is little reason for most projects not use the advances found in C99.
Amazingly the list is still relevant. I will try to check out the new suggestions on this thread.
Why does everyone always suggest K&R? I really don't see the big deal. It's short, contains only trivial toy examples with no real world application, and touches almost nothing on actual project architecture or best practices. I bought it expecting to learn to write programs in C but it's really just a reference manual on syntax.
Interesting comment they made about using C89 for portability. What's the state of C99 today? I know gcc doesn't support all C99 features, but what about other compilers? Is it worthwhile to use C99 in a new project?
In the 90s, most seriouc C programmers knew about these books. They were the core books most devs relied on and referred to. They're all good. I disagree with this comment: "No website is as good as a good book. And no good book is as good as a disassembly output." There are many websites today that are excellent. And there are many websites that cover obscure topics not found in books. Finally, I think it's importan…
Does visual studio support c99 yet? Last I heard MS wasn’t interested in supporting it.
In the 90s, most seriouc C programmers knew about these books. They were the core books most devs relied on and referred to. They're all good. I disagree with this comment: "No website is as good as a good book. And no good book is as good as a disassembly output." There are many websites today that are excellent. And there are many websites that cover obscure topics not found in books. Finally, I think it's importan…
In the 90s, most seriouc C programmers knew about these books. They were the core books most devs relied on and referred to. They're all good. I disagree with this comment: "No website is as good as a good book. And no good book is as good as a disassembly output." There are many websites today that are excellent. And there are many websites that cover obscure topics not found in books. Finally, I think it's importan…
> But today, there is little reason for most projects not use the advances found in C99. Does visual studio support c99 yet? Last I heard MS wasn’t interested in supporting it.
In the 90s, most seriouc C programmers knew about these books. They were the core books most devs relied on and referred to. They're all good. I disagree with this comment: "No website is as good as a good book. And no good book is as good as a disassembly output." There are many websites today that are excellent. And there are many websites that cover obscure topics not found in books. Finally, I think it's importan…
Personally (3 decades+ journeyman C), I find lot of the advances are often about trying to get people out of bad practices (e.g. stdint.h in C99 to fix portability issues between 32 and 64 bit).