* sorry man off-topic @ 2021-10-22 10:35 Byung-Hee HWANG 2021-10-22 11:00 ` Emanuel Berg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Byung-Hee HWANG @ 2021-10-22 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding hellow all long time no see recently i have to make some C lang program i am new to C lang with perfactly. only i can do printf() hellow world so i would like to see good book or strong advice for learning C lang very fast the program is about input method for korean people using linux. so i will run gcc and linux desktop such as debian 11 or ubuntu lts. at comp.lang.c some guy give(advice) me "effective c" as good book. if there is no advice, i may go with "effective c". any comments welcome!! thanks! Sincerely, Gnus fan Byung-Hee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-22 10:35 sorry man off-topic Byung-Hee HWANG @ 2021-10-22 11:00 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-22 11:13 ` Byung-Hee HWANG 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-22 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > at comp.lang.c some guy give(advice) me "effective c" as > good book. if there is no advice, i may go with "effective > c". > > any comments welcome!! Stay off Usenet if you are sensitive to insults and/or capricious/old people ... The "K&R C" book, 1978: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-22 11:00 ` Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-22 11:13 ` Byung-Hee HWANG 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Byung-Hee HWANG @ 2021-10-22 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Gnus Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> writes: > ... > The "K&R C" book, 1978: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language Thanks, Emanuel!!! Sincerely, Gnus fan Byung-Hee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-22 11:00 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-22 11:13 ` Byung-Hee HWANG @ 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 7:35 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 7:37 ` Emanuel Berg 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Emanuel Berg writes: > Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > >> at comp.lang.c some guy give(advice) me "effective c" as >> good book. if there is no advice, i may go with "effective >> c". >> >> any comments welcome!! > > Stay off Usenet if you are sensitive to insults and/or > capricious/old people ... > > The "K&R C" book, 1978: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_C_Programming_Language Not a bad book, of course, but it is severely outdated; in fact the wiki says that the last edition is from 1988, so maybe the code in the first one doesn't even compile on modern compilers due to deprecated syntax. I have not read "Effective C" by Robert C. Seacord, but it's up to date with the latest C standards, according to the description. -- Alberto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 7:35 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 8:32 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 7:37 ` Emanuel Berg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Alberto Luaces wrote: > Not a bad book, of course, but it is severely outdated; in > fact the wiki says that the last edition is from 1988, so > maybe the code in the first one doesn't even compile on > modern compilers due to deprecated syntax. > > I have not read "Effective C" by Robert C. Seacord, but it's > up to date with the latest C standards, according to > the description. Aren't C standards mostly concern with backward compatibility anyway? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 7:35 ` Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 8:32 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 9:11 ` Emanuel Berg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Emanuel Berg writes: > Alberto Luaces wrote: > >> Not a bad book, of course, but it is severely outdated; in >> fact the wiki says that the last edition is from 1988, so >> maybe the code in the first one doesn't even compile on >> modern compilers due to deprecated syntax. >> >> I have not read "Effective C" by Robert C. Seacord, but it's >> up to date with the latest C standards, according to >> the description. > > Aren't C standards mostly concern with backward > compatibility anyway? For sure, but I guess it is not desirable to write new code or learn to write it with archaic notation as k&r function declaration, not to mention the 40 years of improvements on the language that you'd be skipping. -- Alberto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 8:32 ` Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 9:11 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 11:16 ` Alberto Luaces 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Alberto Luaces wrote: >> Aren't C standards mostly concern with backward >> compatibility anyway? > > For sure, but I guess it is not desirable to write new code > or learn to write it with archaic notation as k&r function > declaration, not to mention the 40 years of improvements on > the language that you'd be skipping. It doesn't work like that, especially not with C ... read it, beneficial. 100%, trust me -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 9:11 ` Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 11:16 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 11:51 ` Emanuel Berg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Emanuel Berg writes: > Alberto Luaces wrote: > >>> Aren't C standards mostly concern with backward >>> compatibility anyway? >> >> For sure, but I guess it is not desirable to write new code >> or learn to write it with archaic notation as k&r function >> declaration, not to mention the 40 years of improvements on >> the language that you'd be skipping. > > It doesn't work like that, especially not with C ... read it, > beneficial. 100%, trust me I did many years ago, and in fact I quite enjoyed it, but recommending it nowadays to a newbie is a terrible advice, no offense. -- Alberto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 11:16 ` Alberto Luaces @ 2021-10-25 11:51 ` Emanuel Berg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Alberto Luaces wrote: > I did many years ago, and in fact I quite enjoyed it, but > recommending it nowadays to a newbie is a terrible advice, > no offense. An intro book in C is about the C language which is very easy. It is possible to learn _without_ a book at age 12, you just need a text file, an editor, a compiler, and the Internet. What is difficult OTOH is getting a grip and hold of the libraries and develop an engineering instinct how to make them work with your tweaks and adaptations to ultimately solve a problem or provide a service in a technology setting that have particular characteristics and attributes even when your program enters the scene. So, a "newbie" can read zero, one or _all_ intro books on C, and the effect of that is a function of the "newbie"'s cognitive abilities, dedication, and work habits, not on the quality of the C books, of which there are many that are very good - and especially that won't ever happen here, since that's a great book, iconic even, and the C language hasn't changed much at all (on the contrary, other languages have adopted its syntax) - so even if that argument made sense, which it doesn't, it makes even less sense here! Write code every day, and as for books the more good books you read the better. That's all there is to it. Be confident and don't worry about meaningless details e.g. what particular book to read, what order to do what, what standard may have changed to a minimal extent from one point to another on the timeline before you were born, instead have FUN and add VOLUME every day. V O L U M E while thinking at the same time. #@$%&! -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: sorry man off-topic 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 7:35 ` Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 7:37 ` Emanuel Berg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Emanuel Berg @ 2021-10-25 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Alberto Luaces wrote: > I have not read "Effective C" by Robert C. Seacord, but it's > up to date with the latest C standards, according to > the description. Right, but I've heard that the unofficial sequel to that book, "Inefficient C", had more of a "cult" appeal ... -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-25 11:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-10-22 10:35 sorry man off-topic Byung-Hee HWANG 2021-10-22 11:00 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-22 11:13 ` Byung-Hee HWANG 2021-10-25 7:30 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 7:35 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 8:32 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 9:11 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 11:16 ` Alberto Luaces 2021-10-25 11:51 ` Emanuel Berg 2021-10-25 7:37 ` Emanuel Berg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).