Pointers in C (2010)
boredzo.org
Pointers in C (2010)
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#2I always wonder what makes pointers so difficult for some. So far I have always been able to explain it to people by drawing a linear memory space and then showing how different types are allocated. It seems to me that pointers are one the easier concepts in programming.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#3I always wonder what makes pointers so difficult for some. So far I have always been able to explain it to people by drawing a linear memory space and then showing how different types are allocated. It seems to me that pointers are one the easier concepts in programming.
While I agree that a simple figure does a good job at explaining what a pointer is, it takes quite a bit longer to develop an intuitive sense of how to effectively work with pointers. In that case it's the more examples, the better.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#4I checked the section "Interlude: Arrays" because the relationship between pointers and arrays in C is a major sticking point.
It claims that, given a declaration
int array[] = { 45, 67, 89 };
In the next section:
"By the way, though sizeof(void) is illegal, void pointers are incremented or decremented by 1 byte."
Arithmetic on void pointers is a gcc-specific extension (also supported by some other compilers). It's a constraint violation in standard C.
I don't think this is the "best" article on pointers in C.
I usually recommend section 6 of the comp.lang.c FAQ, http://www.c-faq.com/
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#5I don’t have my copy at hand, but Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets has the best coverage of pointers and arrays I’ve seen.
In particular, it supplies a useful algorithm for decoding all pointer declarations such as functions that return function pointers.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#6I always wonder what makes pointers so difficult for some. So far I have always been able to explain it to people by drawing a linear memory space and then showing how different types are allocated. It seems to me that pointers are one the easier concepts in programming.
While I agree that a simple figure does a good job at explaining what a pointer is, it takes quite a bit longer to develop an intuitive sense of how to effectively work with pointers. In that case it's the more examples, the better.
The syntax gets funky, as well, especially in modern eyes.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#7I've always been partial to Dennis Kubes' five minute guide:
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree that a simple figure does a good job at explaining what a pointer is, it takes quite a bit longer to develop an intuitive sense of how to effectively work with pointers. In that case it's the more examples, the better.
The syntax gets funky, as well, especially in modern eyes.
To add another reason they’re difficult: many non-trivial uses of pointers are in particularly hairy situations, such as navigating complex data structures.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#9I joked the other day to a co-worker, currently working full time in Python, that you get used to the list comprehension and other nice things of Python so much, that you'll never be able to go back to gnarlier languages like Java/C. It's just too nice. You can get python to run really fast nowadays and if you can't, you still got nim.
Re: Pointers in C (2010)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The syntax gets funky, as well, especially in modern eyes.
To add another reason they’re difficult: many non-trivial uses of pointers are in particularly hairy situations, such as navigating complex data structures.
Combine that with magic number offsets, the guy who wrote it retired or moved on, and the only documentation is a comment above it that says, "DONT TOUCH".