Don't Learn C the Wrong Way

Don't Learn C the Wrong Way
hentenaar.com

"Wait a tic... Where's the Makefile? I've got just about as much chance of finding it as the FBI does of finding Jimmy Hoffa. Am I just supposed to imagine it into existence?"

I think the point is that the make command can use implicit rules even if there is no Makefile. It knows how to compile C source files. (This could be confusing if you know about "make" but don't know about implicit rules.) For example:

    $ ls
    hello.c
    $ cat hello.c
    #include 
    int main(void) {
        puts("hello");
        return 0;
    }
    $ make hello
    cc     hello.c   -o hello
    $ ./hello
    hello
    $

Yes, that's exactly what you're supposed to do. Try it, it should work.

Part 10 mentions strncpy() as a safer strcpy(). It isn't. http://the-flat-trantor-society.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-strn...

(Disclaimer: I haven't read Zed Shaw's book, and I don't intend to.)

Yeah, this was the fist sign I wouldn't read to the end, and I was right. The author just says this, and leaves it at that. As if we are to just take his word for it. This is essentially what this argument boils down to:

"He said X, I say X++." No explanation, nothing to backup what he says, nothing other than a to suggest it's a epic understatement.

Let's put this another way: my comment is has more to backup what I say than this article. The author might be right, but he doesn't back it up.

I wonder if it's simply a case of:

1. Zed Shaw is controversial on HN

2. I know, I'll write a post that disses Zed Shaw

3. ???

4. Profit!