5 ms·

K&R is often recommended, and it's certainly fun to read and accessible. But I've also heard it's outdated, and doesn't rally focus much on modern C software de

by scarmig 11y ago

K&R is often recommended, and it's certainly fun to read and accessible. But I've also heard it's outdated, and doesn't rally focus much on modern C software design, mostly because the world knew little about it when K&R was written. Thoughts?

robertelder 11y ago
It is still relevant due to the fact that K&R C is still extremely (but not completely) forward compatible with even the most modern c++ standards. Many software design best practices have changed since then, but if you read a more modern book some of the first principles of the C language will have to be either repeated or omitted by a modern book.
satysin 11y ago
K&R is still a great book but there are also other great books. Programming in C by Kochan and A Modern Approach by King are two fantastic books and much more suited to a true beginner than K&R is IMHO. Also Head First C and 21st Century C (second edition) are great books to read. The exercises in K&R are superb though and I highly recommend taking the time to do them all while you read K&R which I still feel you should, it is a small book so shouldn't take long to read.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Since we're throwing out books, "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to C" (by Perry) has helped a number of people who felt completely overwhelmed by programming in general...
dsfuoi 11y ago
I think the style should be avoided; code shouldn't be compact and variable names should be descriptive. Artificial example: for( int i = 0 ; i < c+j ; i += b ) should be: for( int count = 0 ; count < sum+extra ; count += skip ) It may be allowed to use i in place of count here, but this is the only place where single name variables should be permitted and only if i is really just a simple array index iterator.
- tmuir 11y ago
  Even "i" can be changed to "index". My rule of thumb is this: If you wouldn't use the abbreviation when speaking, don't use it when coding. I don't understand why 'i' has been given a pass. The argument boils down to saved keystrokes. Typing is not the bottleneck.
  - dsfuoi 11y ago
    I agree, and I have calculated this a while ago this based on average number of lines a programmer writes in 8 hours. I don't have the actual numbers but unless you type slower than ~30 words per minute, speed it isn't a bottleneck. I have been using index instead of i in while loops lately. It's surprisingly concise.
  - kleiba 11y ago
    My guess would be that it derives from the mathematical notation for sums. But apart from that, I think using i,j,k as index variables in for-loop has become such a de-facto standard that I would only prefer long names such as "count" or "index" in situations where multiple indices may cause confusion. But then I'd probably use even more specific names than "count" or "index".
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    > I don't understand why 'i' has been given a pass. The reason is that in FORTRAN variables starting with i, j, k..n were defined as integers. Back in the day I learned fortran first, then basic. People that learned basic first often would use the letter 'a' as a loop index instead of 'i' Now days I still use 'i' but often use indx instead because my editor doesn't highlight single letter variables easily.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      I'm okay with "i" (like others said, it's a well-known shorthand for "iterator" or "index") but I often use "idx" because it can easily be combined with other words in nested loops (e.g. "rowIdx" and "columnIdx").
  - 11y ago
simplicio 11y ago
I first learned C from K&R, but I'm not really that big of a fan. I find the style of inter-mixing new information in the middle of examples kind of hard to follow. I prefer to have the basics set out in front, and than get a bunch of examples demonstrating them. I'm sure people with different learning styles have an easier time with it, though.
bitwize 11y ago
K&R Second Ed. was published going on two decades after C first emerged. Already many versions of Unix and the applications to run on them were written at the time of K&R Second. You can hardly say that little was known about software design with C at the time it came out. It won't cover C99, C11, or modern practices to mitigate buffer overflows. But it is still an excellent introduction to the fundamentals of C. It's also aimed at people who already know how to program in, say, Pascal, so is probably best not approached as a rank beginner.
signa11 11y ago
> thoughts ? well, there is a 'ModernC' book by Jens Gustedt of INRIA available here: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/img_auth.php/d/db/ModernC.pdf http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/img_auth.php/d/db/ModernC.pdf which might suit your fancy ?
ams6110 11y ago
Some of the examples in K&R are not up to date with respect to modern security practices. They are almost case studies in how to implement code vulnerable to buffer overflows, etc. Or maybe it's better to say -- sanity checking on inputs is an (unmentioned) exercise left to the reader.

by scarmig 11y ago

robertelder 11y ago

It is still relevant due to the fact that K&R C is still extremely (but not completely) forward compatible with even the most modern c++ standards. Many software design best practices have changed since then, but if you read a more modern book some of the first principles of the C language will have to be either repeated or omitted by a modern book.

satysin 11y ago

K&R is still a great book but there are also other great books. Programming in C by Kochan and A Modern Approach by King are two fantastic books and much more suited to a true beginner than K&R is IMHO. Also Head First C and 21st Century C (second edition) are great books to read. The exercises in K&R are superb though and I highly recommend taking the time to do them all while you read K&R which I still feel you should, it is a small book so shouldn't take long to read.

ktRolster 11y ago
Since we're throwing out books, "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to C" (by Perry) has helped a number of people who felt completely overwhelmed by programming in general...

dsfuoi 11y ago

I think the style should be avoided; code shouldn't be compact and variable names should be descriptive. Artificial example: for( int i = 0 ; i < c+j ; i += b ) should be: for( int count = 0 ; count < sum+extra ; count += skip ) It may be allowed to use i in place of count here, but this is the only place where single name variables should be permitted and only if i is really just a simple array index iterator.

tmuir 11y ago
Even "i" can be changed to "index". My rule of thumb is this: If you wouldn't use the abbreviation when speaking, don't use it when coding. I don't understand why 'i' has been given a pass. The argument boils down to saved keystrokes. Typing is not the bottleneck.
- dsfuoi 11y ago
  I agree, and I have calculated this a while ago this based on average number of lines a programmer writes in 8 hours. I don't have the actual numbers but unless you type slower than ~30 words per minute, speed it isn't a bottleneck. I have been using index instead of i in while loops lately. It's surprisingly concise.
- kleiba 11y ago
  My guess would be that it derives from the mathematical notation for sums. But apart from that, I think using i,j,k as index variables in for-loop has become such a de-facto standard that I would only prefer long names such as "count" or "index" in situations where multiple indices may cause confusion. But then I'd probably use even more specific names than "count" or "index".
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  > I don't understand why 'i' has been given a pass. The reason is that in FORTRAN variables starting with i, j, k..n were defined as integers. Back in the day I learned fortran first, then basic. People that learned basic first often would use the letter 'a' as a loop index instead of 'i' Now days I still use 'i' but often use indx instead because my editor doesn't highlight single letter variables easily.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    I'm okay with "i" (like others said, it's a well-known shorthand for "iterator" or "index") but I often use "idx" because it can easily be combined with other words in nested loops (e.g. "rowIdx" and "columnIdx").
- 11y ago

simplicio 11y ago

I first learned C from K&R, but I'm not really that big of a fan. I find the style of inter-mixing new information in the middle of examples kind of hard to follow. I prefer to have the basics set out in front, and than get a bunch of examples demonstrating them. I'm sure people with different learning styles have an easier time with it, though.

bitwize 11y ago

K&R Second Ed. was published going on two decades after C first emerged. Already many versions of Unix and the applications to run on them were written at the time of K&R Second. You can hardly say that little was known about software design with C at the time it came out. It won't cover C99, C11, or modern practices to mitigate buffer overflows. But it is still an excellent introduction to the fundamentals of C. It's also aimed at people who already know how to program in, say, Pascal, so is probably best not approached as a rank beginner.

signa11 11y ago

> thoughts ? well, there is a 'ModernC' book by Jens Gustedt of INRIA available here: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/img_auth.php/d/db/ModernC.pdf http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/img_auth.php/d/db/ModernC.pdf which might suit your fancy ?

ams6110 11y ago

Some of the examples in K&R are not up to date with respect to modern security practices. They are almost case studies in how to implement code vulnerable to buffer overflows, etc. Or maybe it's better to say -- sanity checking on inputs is an (unmentioned) exercise left to the reader.