Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/10/25/11:30:23
Damian Yerrick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:54:36 +1100, Jason Stokes
> <jstok AT bluedog DOT apana DOT org DOT au> wrote:
>
> >From the standpoint of an engineer who is used to evaluating
> >*tradeoffs*, might it be arguable that an *on balance* argument
> >might be made, to wit, that a Schildt book that has been written
> >quite elegantly and accessibly, yet contains the occasional error
>
> "Occasional error" my foot. I challenge you to find _one_ source code
> example in a Schildt book that doesn't contain an error.
>
> `void main()' is an error.
Right.
>
> >might not be considered preferable to a book which is scrupulously
> >correct, yet written in such Stroustroupish turgidness that all
> >first-years who have had the misfortune to be exposed to it defect
> >to something nice and easy like media studies?
>
> That's why there's the "For Dummies(R)" series of books from IDG.
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that "C For Dummies" is
scrupulously correct, but not Stroustrupishly turgid. If so, I would
agree with the latter, but not the former, description. "C For Dummies"
is yet another void main() book.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/clc/cbooks.html contains a list of good
C tutorial books (as well as some good C reference books). Regrettably,
the list is very short. (I don't claim it's exhaustive, by the way -
it's just a list of books frequently recommended by comp.lang.c
regulars.)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
- Raw text -