NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/msdos/programm/11695

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.programmer:11695 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:703 comp.lang.c++:18532 comp.lang.c:19008
Newsgroups: 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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:51:54 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>
>Consider a few common questions:
>
>    I don't know C or C++, should I learn C first?
>
>No. Learn C++ first. The C subset of C++ is easier to learn for C/C++
>novices and easier to use than C itself. The reason is that
>C++ provides better guarantees than C (stronger type checking).
>In addition, C++ provides many minor features, such as the `new'
>operator, that are notationally more convenient and less error-prone
>than their C alternatives. Thus, if you plan to learn C and C++ (or
>just C++) you shouldn't take the detour through C. To use C well,
>you need to know tricks and techniques that aren't anywhere near
>as important or common in C++ as they are in C. Good C textbooks
>tends (reasonably enough) to emphasize the techniques that you
>will need for completing major projects in C. Good C++ textbooks,
>on the other hand, emphasizes techniques and features that lead
>to the use of C++ for data abstraction and object-oriented programming.
>Knowing the C++ constructs, their (lower-level) C alternatives are
>trivially learned (if necessary).
>
>To show my inclinations:
>
>    To learn C use:
>
>        Kernighan and Ritchie:
>        The C programming Language (2nd edition)
>        Prentice Hall, 1988.
>
>    as the primary textbook. To learn C++ use
>
>        Stroustrup:
>        The C++ programming Language (2nd edition)
>        Addison Wesley, 1991.
>
>Both books have the advantage of combining a tutorial presentation
>of language features and techniques with a complete reference manual.
>Both describes their respective languages rather than particular
>implementations and neither attempts to describe particular libraries
>shipped with particular implementations.
>
>There are many other good textbooks and many other styles of
>presentation, but these are my favorites for comprehension
>of concepts and styles. It is always wise to look carefully
>at at least two sources of information to compensate for bias
>and possible shortcommings.

This is where I respectfully disagree with you.  While programmers
undoubtedly do well under your personal tutelage, my experience has been
that FORTRAN programmers who teach themselves C commit the cardinal sins
against good programming practice that I listed in a previous post.  In
my opinion, structured programming, style, and good habits must be
taught by a teacher.  And since most structured programming teachers
prefer Pascal, I recommended taking a college structured programming
Pascal course.

Your points about the superior subset of C in C++ are good, but I don't
see anywhere in your book where you caution novices against jumping into
class creation right away and just learning the traditional features.
Again, one could benefit from having a teacher such as yourself, but the
one who is trying to teach himself does not have such guidance and could
quickly get mired in the advanced features of C++.  I recommended
self-teaching C before C++ because the trick to C++ is when _not_ to
create a class, and I've found this mentioned only in articles and never
in any textbooks.

I think the suggestion of a FORTRAN programer jumping into C on his own
is a very bad one, and the idea of him getting into C++ is ludicrous.