NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/msdos/programm/3011

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.msdos.programmer:3011 comp.os.msdos.programmer:11615 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:676 comp.lang.c++:18414 comp.lang.c:18888
Newsgroups: alt.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Path: sparky!uunet!grebyn!daily!malak
From: [e-mail] (Michael Malak)
Subject: Re: Newbie Wants Advice on C-Programming
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 07:00:24 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Malak) writes:
>> In my opinion, there is no fast track to either C or C++.  I feel the
>> following must be learned in order:
>>   1) Pascal, with two semesters experience
>
>IMHO, Pascal has nothing useful that C doesn't have, except for array
>bounds checking.  You you use C++ you can use a vector class that
>gives you that.

Pascal has the following advantages over C:

   1) It has structured syntactic blocks for constants, types and
      variables.

   2) It has nested procedures.

   3) Most importantly, the good structured programming professors
      wouldn't be caught dead teaching C (biggotry in my opinion).

>  I would suggest learning Scheme for a semester or two
>and then moving to C++.

Is there an MS-DOS Scheme?

>
>>   2) Assembly, learned anywhere, with tinkering on your own
>
>I'm not sure it's so important to really program in assembly.  You
>should understand basic machine architecture, and have some idea of
>what an instruction set looks like, but writing real code, especially
>for a RISC, doesn't teach you all that much.

It depends on what you mean by "writing real [assembly] code".  I think
to learn anything you need to try it at least once.  The programming
assignments in an assembly class would be sufficient, as would be
trying a couple of exercises out of a tutorial book if one were
learning it on his own.

>
>>   3) C, 2-3 years min. anywhere (college, real world, or tinkering)
>> After that you can learn and appreciate C++.  You need to first learn
>> structured programming and algorithms, most importantly, linked lists
>> and trees.  Since C is tightly coupled to assembly in many ways (C is a
>> shorthand for assembly, and C integrates easily with assembly modules),
>
>Two point here.  First, you can start with a subset of C++ that is
>close to C, but includes important things such as mandatory function
>prototypes and flexible declaration positioning, and add classes and
>other OO features gradually.  You don't have to jump into multiple
>inheritance the first day.  There are plenty of ways that C++ improved
>on C that don't add much conceptual complexity.

Good point.

>
>Second, it's not right to call C "shorthand for assembly".  One thing
>you can say about C and C++ is that it discourages language features
>that can't be implemented at compile time, but that doesn't make it
>any closer to assembly than any other compiled language.  And most
>languages "integrate easily with assembly modules", simply because
>that's what compilers produce.

BASIC, LISP, and all the other interpretive languages do not integrate
with assembly.  And on many platforms other than MS-DOS you cannot mix
(link) outputs from different compilers.  All in all, most languages on
most platforms do not mix well with assembly.  I know of no C compiler
that cannot link in assembly modules; I cannot say the same for any
other language.