C++ Book from before standards
So I just got done reading "C++ Pointers and Dynamic Memory Management", Daconta. At the very end has some appendices, and one of them discussing some random compiler issues he was having and mentioned:
"Many will be cleared up when ANSI C++ is complete." This sparked my interest, so I went and looked up when the first ANSI standards for C++ came out, 1998. Three years after this book was published. I got a nice chuckle from that, hope I didn't learn anything that's no longer valid.
"Many will be cleared up when ANSI C++ is complete." This sparked my interest, so I went and looked up when the first ANSI standards for C++ came out, 1998. Three years after this book was published. I got a nice chuckle from that, hope I didn't learn anything that's no longer valid.
I think the whole of C++ is designed around pointers and memory management. Most of what should have been covered in that book should still be up to date. There might be better/more efficient ways to do something, but overall pointers don't change much and are used for just about everything since even the simplest variables will always be stored in a memory location.
C++ is an ever changing language and even if a book got published this year, it's more than likely already outdated. It would possibly cover some C++0x standards, but since some of them have changed since C++11 was released, and more were added, it wouldn't be 100% right.
I'm personally wait for Stroustrups C++ Programming Edition 4 to come out which is due by the end of summer/fall. I also want to get a more current version of theories, but I guess since I don't understand a lot of the theories, I could use an older one. I get caught up on how linked lists work, trees, and a few others. I feel that understanding the concept of what they are and how to use them and then eventually programming them would help me understand better.
C++ is an ever changing language and even if a book got published this year, it's more than likely already outdated. It would possibly cover some C++0x standards, but since some of them have changed since C++11 was released, and more were added, it wouldn't be 100% right.
I'm personally wait for Stroustrups C++ Programming Edition 4 to come out which is due by the end of summer/fall. I also want to get a more current version of theories, but I guess since I don't understand a lot of the theories, I could use an older one. I get caught up on how linked lists work, trees, and a few others. I feel that understanding the concept of what they are and how to use them and then eventually programming them would help me understand better.
Yea I'm sure most of it is still applicable. Some things were noticeable, such as the author used void main() throughout the entire book. And I guess references were a little different then as well.
I had no idea Strousup was writing a new book. I think I'll definitely have to pick that up.
I had no idea Strousup was writing a new book. I think I'll definitely have to pick that up.
4th Edition:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#4th
Technically void main can still work in some compilers since they may not force the standards. I do believe int main() was the standard for a long time, maybe even since before that book was written, but was never required? I learned void main when I was taking classes in 2004-2006. Granted, it was high school level and by no means were we learning standard C++.
I believe learning the syntax is more important than anything, but I've been helping a few people that have classes, one specifically I talk to on a daily basis, and their teachers have actually discouraged standard C++. I have suggested them letting me write very angry letters stating that doing things the proper way should not cause a student to fail, and that you should encourage the students to learn on their own, don't hinder their abilities.
As for the book you read, I might have to pick it up, maybe one from this decade, so I can get a better grasp on pointers since they have eluded me for several years now. The concept is easy enough for me to understand, but when I see pointers all through someone's code, I just accept it that it works rather than how/why. I'm typically very bad at debugging pointers and I want to improve my skills on that.
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#4th
Technically void main can still work in some compilers since they may not force the standards. I do believe int main() was the standard for a long time, maybe even since before that book was written, but was never required? I learned void main when I was taking classes in 2004-2006. Granted, it was high school level and by no means were we learning standard C++.
I believe learning the syntax is more important than anything, but I've been helping a few people that have classes, one specifically I talk to on a daily basis, and their teachers have actually discouraged standard C++. I have suggested them letting me write very angry letters stating that doing things the proper way should not cause a student to fail, and that you should encourage the students to learn on their own, don't hinder their abilities.
As for the book you read, I might have to pick it up, maybe one from this decade, so I can get a better grasp on pointers since they have eluded me for several years now. The concept is easy enough for me to understand, but when I see pointers all through someone's code, I just accept it that it works rather than how/why. I'm typically very bad at debugging pointers and I want to improve my skills on that.
I definitely recommend the book. I can't imagine it's very expensive, being how old it is. I lucked out and just found at my university's library. Definitely get some in depth knowledge of pointers and just memory in general. Some of it is kind of review if you've ever taken a computer architecture class, but there is still a lot of stuff I never knew before.
The end of the book he goes through how to actually implement a memory manager, that part I'm gonna have to reread a couple times haha. It's long, and it seems pretty complicated. Even though he claims it's not.
The end of the book he goes through how to actually implement a memory manager, that part I'm gonna have to reread a couple times haha. It's long, and it seems pretty complicated. Even though he claims it's not.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.