Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/10/17/17:45:16
Hmmm. One wonders what Tore Salte (the long-forgotten originator of this
thread) is getting out of this answer to his request for some programming
books.
/Al
"Richard Heathfield" <binary AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> wrote in message
news:39EB6A28 DOT C4EF19D9 AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk...
> <much snippage, throughout>
>
> ChuckEasttom wrote:
> >
> > In article <39EB4271 DOT 85CE6874 AT antlimited DOT com>,
> > Richard Heathfield <richard AT antlimited DOT com> wrote:
> > > [Hey, Chuck, do you think we should start selling tickets? :-) ]
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely!:)
>
> You print and distribute them, and I'll collect the money. ;-)
>
> > > [Herbert Schildt] is a persuasive author; this should be a good thing
but,
> > > unfortunately, in his case it is not. He covers difficult topics with
> > > aplomb - perhaps this is a consequence of his Masters degree. What a
> > > pity, then, that I cannot trust his code.
> > >
> > I am not saying his code or his books are perfect. I am saying,
> > however, that your statement "I cannot trust his code" is simply too
> > strong.
>
> I don't think so. Now, I am quite sure that an experienced C programmer
> could take the ideas Schildt presents, and make workable, or even
> excellent, programs out of them. What is at issue here is that the
> flawed techniques Schildt demonstrates are aimed at /newcomers/ to C,
> who are unable to distinguish between what is correct and what is not.
> All too often, they happen to be using the very platform he assumes they
> are using, with the result that the code often appears to "work", even
> though it's flawed. Not all environments are as forgiving as Wintel, so
> newcomers to C learn techniques which suddenly stop working when they
> switch platforms, and they don't understand why.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 3. And president of a consulting firm.
> > >
> > > Yes, a lot of us are in that position.
> >
> > Congratulations.
>
> Not really - I am the only consultant in the firm! Now, Schildt may be
> the president of a firm employing 200 people. Or he might be a one-man
> band, like me. I suspect the latter, but have no particular evidence for
> that suspicion.
>
> > Oh I will undoubtably be scouring your book for errors:)
>
> Good. That's what peer review is /for/.
>
> >
> > But my point is this: Your book has some errors, Schildts book has some
> > errors... I have a little epublished VB book that I am currently
> > revising because of...yep errors. But your statements seem to indicate
> > that if his books have any errors, then they cannot be trusted.
>
> No, I've already pointed out in this thread that errors are inevitable.
> What marks Schildt out as special is:
>
> 1) Simplicity. Many of his mistakes are howlers that one would expect
> from a newbie, but not from a best-selling author.
> 2) Platform-dependence. Many of his mistakes happen to work on the
> platform he uses, and assumes his readers use - his attitude seems to be
> "if it works on my compiler, it must be right". In a book on Windows
> programming, this might be acceptable. In a book on ANSI C programming,
> it is not.
> 3) Intransigence. When people have, in the past, pointed out his
> mistakes, he has denied that they are mistakes at all, despite firm
> proof. (I'm thinking particularly of when the ANSI committee tried to
> point out to Mr Schildt that main returns int. It has taken him many
> years to come round to the idea, and I suspect he isn't totally
> convinced even to this day.)
> 4) Abdication of responsibility. If Mr Schildt publishes an errata list,
> I certainly haven't found it. If I'm wrong about that, I hope someone
> will point out the fact, for I'd be glad to be proved wrong on this
> count.
>
> Everyone makes mistakes. But we expect that authors will make advanced
> mistakes, not simple mistakes. We expect that authors of books on ANSI C
> will take care to ensure that their programs work on, at the very least,
> two reasonably different platforms. We expect authors to be big enough
> to accept when they're wrong. And we expect authors to provide their
> readership with a list of errata in published works.
>
> At least, those are my expectations. Perhaps I'm just weird.
>
> > I guess that is my real compaint. I would think that professional
> > people, most of whom have a formal education, could express their
> > criticisms in a very civillized manner.
>
> Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you? And, do you know what? To a large
> extent, this *is* in fact the case. People are considerably more polite
> on Usenet than I actually expected would be the case. There is still
> rudeness, of course, and I'm quite sure I'm guilty of it myself. But
> it's naive to expect people who answer questions regularly to be
> unfailingly charming and polite to those who don't bother to follow the
> normal conventions of Usenet in general and, more particularly, the
> customs and norms of the newsgroups to which they post.
>
> > Well perhaps that is my problem..I just don't have the stomach for
> > usenet.
>
> I hope that this very thread has shown that it is possible for people to
> conduct a civilised discussion on Usenet, even when they are, to some
> extent at least, in confrontation with each other.
>
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield
> "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
> C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
> 66 K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html (31
> to go)
- Raw text -