OT: Language War (Re: "C" Manual)
On Saturday 29 December 2001 01:13 pm, Craig Dickson wrote:
> wsa wrote:
> > As others have said stear clear of OS specific topics...
> > Even if you want to start using OS specific stuff later on i think it's
> > best to start out with real C++.
>
> You say that as if C were merely an 'unreal' C++, which is just not
> true. They are two different languages, though obviously C++ is a
> derivative of C.
With minor exceptions, a valid C program is also a valid C++ program
(See appendix B, chapter B.2.2 of "The C++ Programming Language"
for the list of incompatibilities)
> Anyone interested in C++ should learn both, in order to
> understand why C++ is the way it is.
Opinions vary :)
> And should also learn a real OO
> language like OCaml or Smalltalk to see why C++ is such an atrocity,
I'm actually intersted in O'Caml. I'd like to see a few real C++ vs O'Caml
benchmarks though before I start learning the language. Doug's Great
Languages Shootout is not updated any more. I sent him an improved C++
version of one of the benchmarks that ran 5.5 times faster, but he didn't
include it.
If anyone who knows Haskell or O'Caml is intersted in collaborating on this
type of simple benchmark (Similar to http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/).
let me know!
We might even create a *deb for it!
Alec
> > In my opinion you should even avoid 'plain' C because you'll end up
> > learning things you can ditch in C++ cause there are more effecient and
> > new ways of doing things in ++.
> >
> >
> > And make very sure whatever book you get really really restricts to
> > C++... cause there's a shitload of them that sneak in non C++ stuff like
> > the dreaded conio
>
> True, one must always be on the lookout for books that don't really want
> to teach you C++ (or C), but rather C++ or C for MS Windows. Even books
> that aren't Windows-specific rarely seem to discuss how to write
> portable code, though, so it'll be sheer luck if you end up writing
> anything really complex that works on platforms other than the one you
> developed it on.
>
> Craig
Reply to: