Learn C The Hard Way by Zed Shaw

Post by regularfry » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 9:23 PM UTC

jheriko wrote: post #56

Symmetry wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the examples and explanations don't justify the level of castigation. Yes, you should always use strncpy() instead of strcpy() for instance, but that doesn't protect you from all bugs. The example of a safercopy() still relies on the assumption that the pointers given to it are valid, and that assumption is just as impossible prove as the assumption that copy()'s input strings are valid. Safercopy…

"Yes, you should always use strncpy() instead of strcpy() for instance, but that doesn't protect you from all bugs." I agree with your argument, but I don't enjoy encouraging programmers to use strncpy and co... the reason is simple, I don't want to encourage programmers to stop thinking about their code. Not having to think about something is great, when laziness is acceptable (RAD, web development etc.) but not in…

Post by LilValleyBigEgo » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 9:51 PM UTC

Post by argv_empty » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 11:34 PM UTC

benmanns wrote: post #9

shadowfiend wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always use “let's assume roughly X/hour” as a joke. You don't get paid for your spare time, except in opportunity cost. If someone applies 20 hours of their time at work, then yes, that's pocket change. If they apply 20 hours of their time at home, that's not time that they'd get paid for anyway, so the analogy is as foolish as the claim that every pirated copy of a movie would have been bought were it not for pira…

True, but by working for "roughly X/hour" you've established that the typical exchange rate for your time is roughly X/hour. If I were to ask you to do some work for my during your off time, I would have to pay about X ± X/2 depending on how you guarded your time. So what if someone only values their time at X/4? That's still $200 worth of spare time.

Post by anthonyb » Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

Roboprog wrote: post #39

Jabbles wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit like claiming memcpy() is bugged because it can crash your program. Well, true, it is good style to program defensively against memory corruptions, buffer overflows etc, and in that respect K&R may teach students bad habits. I think it's a bit much to say that it should never have been written like that, as at the time people knew so much less about building complex projects, sources of error and defensive…

heh heh. Who would have expected mercy and respect from the guy that made the (paraphrased) "pro-mo-fo" website (first saw it at Atlassian conference about 2 weeks ago, pretty funny though perhaps a bit rude). I think the guy is more than willing to point out any practices now deemed harmful, tradition be damned. I'm over it.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 1:58 AM UTC

baby wrote: post #66

It's funny how, I started getting annoyed seeing people still learning to code on books while free tutorials were starting to pop up everywhere on internet. And now people are starting to charge for those tutorials. And I know people here in HN love Zed Shaw. But come on, there are hundreds of free great tutorials to learn C on internet.