how to learn c++ language
Hello Mohit!
I recommend to buy a good book and learn at home from that book.
also use this forum when ever you don't understand something, there is allways someone willing to help you.
but good book and self learning is NO1
I recommend to buy a good book and learn at home from that book.
also use this forum when ever you don't understand something, there is allways someone willing to help you.
but good book and self learning is NO1
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
mohit thareja,
If you have not done any programming before (or minimal/scripting) I would recommend the following book:
Programming -- Principles and Practice Using C++
by Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/programming.html
If you have done some programming before, look at
C++ Primer
by Stanley B. Lippman et al
and then basically work you way through the book, doing all the exercises along the way. You will learn more from reading and doing than just reading. So even it you read something and think you understand still do the exercises. I would suggest that you only move on from chapters when you understand the contents and if you hit problems ask questions here.
If you have not done any programming before (or minimal/scripting) I would recommend the following book:
Programming -- Principles and Practice Using C++
by Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/programming.html
If you have done some programming before, look at
C++ Primer
by Stanley B. Lippman et al
and then basically work you way through the book, doing all the exercises along the way. You will learn more from reading and doing than just reading. So even it you read something and think you understand still do the exercises. I would suggest that you only move on from chapters when you understand the contents and if you hit problems ask questions here.
Last edited on
For some good video tutorials, look up TheNewBoston on YouTube. He's a funny guy, and does a great job of teaching. My favorite YouTube tutorial guy out there
You can downlaod it for free from Microsot wesite.
it's called Visual studio 2010 Express.
c++ software which you need is called Development enviroinment or IDE.
EDIT:
here is a link to downloing it:
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/visual-cpp-express
it's called Visual studio 2010 Express.
c++ software which you need is called Development enviroinment or IDE.
EDIT:
here is a link to downloing it:
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/visual-cpp-express
Last edited on
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/visual-cpp-express
when i install this its show error windows xp service pack 3 is requireed and i am using xp service pack 2 any solution to use this software with xp 2
when i install this its show error windows xp service pack 3 is requireed and i am using xp service pack 2 any solution to use this software with xp 2
probably need to check the microsoft website and or they may not have a solution to that. in their mind its probably "why would we offer an alternative when we want people to use service pack 3". Microsoft is ..."not nice" like that.
Reading through the tutorial on this website is quite helpful but it still lacks description that most beginners (such as myself as well) would prefer. But it would require a lot of additional work to explain a lot of it to such a simplistic point.
what I've found is think of a program you'd like to write, then work on writing it, using the tutorial, google, and these forums.
Reading through the tutorial on this website is quite helpful but it still lacks description that most beginners (such as myself as well) would prefer. But it would require a lot of additional work to explain a lot of it to such a simplistic point.
what I've found is think of a program you'd like to write, then work on writing it, using the tutorial, google, and these forums.
Last edited on
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
Why not install service pack 3?
Failing that, try Code::Blocks instead:
download codeblocks-10.05mingw-setup.exe from http://www.codeblocks.org
Failing that, try Code::Blocks instead:
download codeblocks-10.05mingw-setup.exe from http://www.codeblocks.org
Codemonkey:
Not all updates/upgrades are good and sometimes carry with them other things. IIRC to upgrade to service packs you have to appease microsoft somehow (like registering or "certifying" your installation of windows).
Not all updates/upgrades are good and sometimes carry with them other things. IIRC to upgrade to service packs you have to appease microsoft somehow (like registering or "certifying" your installation of windows).
Service Packs are free. You don't need to register or certify anything. After a few weeks, any problems brought by SP installations are usually fixed, so from then on they are "mandatory", because they are in your best interest.
It makes no sense for MS to make a pre-SP3 compatible version, as the only reason not to install SP3 is if your Windows copy isn't legal.
It makes no sense for MS to make a pre-SP3 compatible version, as the only reason not to install SP3 is if your Windows copy isn't legal.
Why don't u download the service pack 3 via windows update service?
or they do not support XP anymore?
or they do not support XP anymore?
Garminic:
Microsoft believes service packs are "in your best interest".
Bear this in mind:
In Windows 7 Ultimate I have to authorize the running of programs I've run dozens of times previously so as to protect me (according to Microsoft thinking its in my "best interest").
YET:
When malware wants to invade my computer, create its own files, create its own authorizations, undeletable files (in the normal sense), set themselves to run at startup, and show me pop up adds, I receive no notifications.
Microsoft's view of "best interest" is a complete load.
I can totally see why someone would not care to update their computer.
Microsoft believes service packs are "in your best interest".
Bear this in mind:
In Windows 7 Ultimate I have to authorize the running of programs I've run dozens of times previously so as to protect me (according to Microsoft thinking its in my "best interest").
YET:
When malware wants to invade my computer, create its own files, create its own authorizations, undeletable files (in the normal sense), set themselves to run at startup, and show me pop up adds, I receive no notifications.
Microsoft's view of "best interest" is a complete load.
I can totally see why someone would not care to update their computer.
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
| dalydir wrote: |
|---|
| Microsoft's view of "best interest" is a complete load. |
probably more like your understanding of what is going on is a complete load.
CodeMonkey:
Would be nice if you would explain that. Considering the issues I referenced are sourced in programming and this is a programming forum, I would welcome such explanations. And, yes, I do get more of it than you probably think.
Result of what I do know beyond what I wrote: I don't care. I'm a customer, I paid for a product, and all I'm left with is them permitting people/malware to hack into my system but have no problem harrassing me over programs I've executed over and over again. From a customer stand point: not acceptable and ludicrous. I can only imagine what people who don't know their way around windows and don't pay for virus programs, deal with these programs Microsoft permits into our systems.
Microsoft does not maintain proper security in their operating systems, plain and simple. That's not to say they haven't made progress. Nor is it to say they don't stop 99% of all malware. But just like programming if certain parameters are met then the result = 1.
Not meant to be perfect code, but I think it clarifies the matter with the evidence presented thus far.
Would be nice if you would explain that. Considering the issues I referenced are sourced in programming and this is a programming forum, I would welcome such explanations. And, yes, I do get more of it than you probably think.
Result of what I do know beyond what I wrote: I don't care. I'm a customer, I paid for a product, and all I'm left with is them permitting people/malware to hack into my system but have no problem harrassing me over programs I've executed over and over again. From a customer stand point: not acceptable and ludicrous. I can only imagine what people who don't know their way around windows and don't pay for virus programs, deal with these programs Microsoft permits into our systems.
Microsoft does not maintain proper security in their operating systems, plain and simple. That's not to say they haven't made progress. Nor is it to say they don't stop 99% of all malware. But just like programming if certain parameters are met then the result = 1.
|
|
Not meant to be perfect code, but I think it clarifies the matter with the evidence presented thus far.
Last edited on
@dalydir: There are so much flaws in your reasoning I don't even know where to begin. I'm just going to ignore all of it and simply point out that your reply has nothing to do with mine.
MS does its best to find clever ways to prevent malware from accessing/altering your system. One such way is the UAC, which you can setup to your hearts delight (if you run the program dozens of times, why not mark it as safe, you genius. Personally, I've never felt the need, but apparently you get the UAC warning every minute?). The fact that they can't stop everything isn't their fault; it's ridiculous to expect that. Then, when they release a new SP, partly to improve the security system, they get idiots saying "Lol, if they can't stop viruses, I'm not installing their new safety systems!1!!".
Service Packs have nothing to do with UAC. SPs are free updates (or should I say upgrades?) that improve the performance and security of your computer, at zero cost. There are exactly two reasons not to install them: an illegal copy of Windows, and sheer stupidity.
Personally, I haven't had a single virus [problem, as in "had to take any action whatsoever to fix something"] since I got Win7 (or actually Vista, but I haven't had that long enough to be a useful measure). I use the free version of AVG (standard installation) and I'm absolutely terrible at PC maintenance. Any virus problem is more likely your fault. I'm guessing you disabled some security functions "because they were annoying" or are simply a sucker for random "download me!" freeware banners.
MS does its best to find clever ways to prevent malware from accessing/altering your system. One such way is the UAC, which you can setup to your hearts delight (if you run the program dozens of times, why not mark it as safe, you genius. Personally, I've never felt the need, but apparently you get the UAC warning every minute?). The fact that they can't stop everything isn't their fault; it's ridiculous to expect that. Then, when they release a new SP, partly to improve the security system, they get idiots saying "Lol, if they can't stop viruses, I'm not installing their new safety systems!1!!".
Service Packs have nothing to do with UAC. SPs are free updates (or should I say upgrades?) that improve the performance and security of your computer, at zero cost. There are exactly two reasons not to install them: an illegal copy of Windows, and sheer stupidity.
Personally, I haven't had a single virus [problem, as in "had to take any action whatsoever to fix something"] since I got Win7 (or actually Vista, but I haven't had that long enough to be a useful measure). I use the free version of AVG (standard installation) and I'm absolutely terrible at PC maintenance. Any virus problem is more likely your fault. I'm guessing you disabled some security functions "because they were annoying" or are simply a sucker for random "download me!" freeware banners.
My point in responding to you is that it is irrelevant why someone doesn't want/have a particular service pack. Not saying its a bad idea to recommend it, just clarifying aspects of it.
Your experience is apparently different than mine with Windows 7. I've had more issues w/ malware in Windows 7 than I did with XP Pro (which I had virtually none). But I've had to bootup into safe mode twice in the last year to remove malware. This malware, by the way, was not caused by files I manually downloaded/executed.
My point about why someone would not want upgrades is that the upgrades don't necessarily mean "better" (hence my comparison between XP Pro Security and Win 7). Only reason I use Win 7 is because XP Pro couldn't handle 3-way SLI setup or 12gb of memory (or at least not w/o tweaking).
The "safe" label on programs still fits with my logic; I sure as heck didn't mark the malware as "safe", yet they don't require my authorization.
If someone has, what you call "an illegal copy of Windows" that's not our business. Why?
1. Its not necessarily "illegal"
2. You don't even know it fits that measurement, maybe they just don't trust MS more than they absolutely have to. Who knows. I am mainly objecting to your determination that someone who doesn't want the SP's to be worthy of some negative measurement.
Your experience is apparently different than mine with Windows 7. I've had more issues w/ malware in Windows 7 than I did with XP Pro (which I had virtually none). But I've had to bootup into safe mode twice in the last year to remove malware. This malware, by the way, was not caused by files I manually downloaded/executed.
My point about why someone would not want upgrades is that the upgrades don't necessarily mean "better" (hence my comparison between XP Pro Security and Win 7). Only reason I use Win 7 is because XP Pro couldn't handle 3-way SLI setup or 12gb of memory (or at least not w/o tweaking).
The "safe" label on programs still fits with my logic; I sure as heck didn't mark the malware as "safe", yet they don't require my authorization.
If someone has, what you call "an illegal copy of Windows" that's not our business. Why?
1. Its not necessarily "illegal"
2. You don't even know it fits that measurement, maybe they just don't trust MS more than they absolutely have to. Who knows. I am mainly objecting to your determination that someone who doesn't want the SP's to be worthy of some negative measurement.
The entire point of malware is trying to circumvent a system's security. UAC doesn't block everything (you'd get thousands of UAC prompts per second), just certain executables which it can't identify. Malware that requires you to run it manually would be pretty stupid.
Also, an illegal copy of Windows is necessarily illegal. Hence why it's called "an illegal copy of Windows". If you don't trust your OS' devs to know better than you do, why on earth would you use that OS in the first place? Honestly, this falls under my "sheer stupidity" category. [On that note: do know that I explicitly stated "after X time" in my initial comment. I know the XP SP2 was notoriously buggy for some people, but it was safe after 2 days or so.]
Also, an illegal copy of Windows is necessarily illegal. Hence why it's called "an illegal copy of Windows". If you don't trust your OS' devs to know better than you do, why on earth would you use that OS in the first place? Honestly, this falls under my "sheer stupidity" category. [On that note: do know that I explicitly stated "after X time" in my initial comment. I know the XP SP2 was notoriously buggy for some people, but it was safe after 2 days or so.]
All of this arguing went totally off topic of what the OP was asking...
+1 Everybody.
-.-
+1 Everybody.
-.-
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.