|
This is not a programming question.
Very odd post - I am actually asking for opinions...
Please share your actual experience and tell your opinion
(in few words, do not want to take too much of your time )
what you recommend as
C++ learning book ( no u-tube, PLEASE ) written in
K&R style.
I mean "meat and potatoes" and minimal "click this /click that"
(got one already ) kindergarten picture book of 500 + pages.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
C++ is a far bigger language than C, so it can't be done in a small book. I learned it quite a while ago, so I can't give you a current recommendation. But the reviews of this book (by the inventor of C++) sound like it could be what you're looking for:
https://www.amazon.com/Tour-C-Bjarne-Stroustrup/dp/0136816487[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The direct comparison to K&R would be C++ Programming Language by Bjarne Stroustrup This is a 1300+ page book, so it's not something you can get through in an couple of days, which gives you some idea of the difference in size between C++ and C. The book is also more a reference, whereas K&R is almost tutorial in approach.
Alternatively, there's Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo That dives straight into the C++ programming with STL. I found it very aproachable and easy to read. My only concern with this book is that it is a bit dated, having been published in 2000, with no newer editions having been published, so additions from C++11...C++23 are not covered (shame!)
I know you don't want YouTube suggestions, but I think C++ Weekly with Jason Turner is worth a look. It's not a course, but he does cover some of the ins and outs of C++. Most videos are less than 20 minutes long, and can provide some insights as to why, for example, you might want to avoid using std::endl.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,041 3/6
⬛🟨⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟩🟨🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,041 4/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Following discusses a new feature in C# which as it looks to me, just means code can be written in even more obscure ways to no point. It allows one to implicitly specify a constructor.
Refactor your C# code with primary constructors - .NET Blog[^]
I have been doing this a long in multiple OO languages and I can say for certain that I never, not even once, wished that I could write code that would mingle the constructor with a method call.
Seems like a perfect way for someone to decide to make modifications after the fact without refactoring but by trying to hack a way into using the same code.
|
|
|
|
|
How does one send a private message to another CodeProject member? My search skills must be weak in this area.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Find a post they made and click the Email link (rather than the Reply link) on that post.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Nowadays, you must have a really high CP reputation for the 'Email' link to appear. I remember it was there, generally available to everyone, but I guess someone abused it, so it was reserved for only those very trustworthy ones. I am not among those, and I wouold suspect that the OP isn't, either.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Nor am I  (But Chris is probably right not to trust me on the site)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Okay good, I thought I still wasn't seeing it.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a reputation limited thing? I don't see the email link on any posts.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Such a link used to exist unless the OP turned that feature off (some members do this so as to not be bothered). I looked at several posts by myself and others and indeed I do not see an Email link. When I check my settings, however, I have the Email notifications turned on. I guess it's above my pay grade.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Can you explain how to enable/disable that feature? I don't find it, but I remember for sure, before a decade it was there.
Maybe also @kent-sharkey can help on that?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure the private email link in posts was removed some time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
That used to be an option for everyone, but it's been a long time since I've seen the email link in any post. Just for giggles, check this response to see if the email link appears. In Options I have checked the "Allow private email replies to this message" box, as well as the "E-mail me if someone replies to this message" box.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
I just checked my permissions on CP. Apparently, in order to send private messages one must be a "protector". AFAIK, very few members have that privilege.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, or am I expecting too much ?
OK, I declare / define C function to return int...
Then I forget to add
return ...
in code.
Compiles / links AND crashes with no error message...
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong place to ask. When you find the correct place, include the actual code and other details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without an explicit return statement, functions default to returning an int. What compile level are you using? I always use level 4.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Me too and that was my first thought. How did that even compile?
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Might not wanna help him. This is the third time he's posted a programming question in the lounge. And from what I've seen the forums, he's not doing much better there either.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I have never look for "compile level", but I 'll try to find it...
Do you mean any function will return int or just when it is declared as returning
int specifically ?
I will have to go see if I actually used the return value...
But since few souls mention this not to post programming questions
I hesitate to post the actual code...
int TEST ( int test )
{
}
for those who needed the code
please note
THERE IS NO "return test;"
WHOOPS
I did not format it properly...
(time to get banned ...)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
