5 ms·

Low level languages are tough. Gaining a mastery of C does require knowing quite a few strange rules and quirks and it's certainly a bit harder than learning Py

by rhexs 10y ago

Low level languages are tough. Gaining a mastery of C does require knowing quite a few strange rules and quirks and it's certainly a bit harder than learning Python. The C FAQ does a good job of illustrating some of the more confusing parts. Sure, I wish I could write Go instead, but that isn't going to happen on the many embedded systems I work on. This is a rather strange and insulting article. I'm not sure why Zed can't help "old programmers" nor do I understand why he's angered that individuals know about undefined behavior in C. Is there any background to this or did he have the misfortune of being insulted on IRC? Edit -- I googled for a bit and discovered this was in response to someone doing a pretty good job technically reviewing the book for free! http://hentenaar.com/dont-learn-c-the-wrong-way http://hentenaar.com/dont-learn-c-the-wrong-way Perhaps the title was a bit inflammatory. Zed's rebuttal is at https://zedshaw.com/2015/09/28/taking-down-tim-hentenaar/ https://zedshaw.com/2015/09/28/taking-down-tim-hentenaar/ and is a great example of how not to react to constructive criticism. My favorite part is his safercopy function and the lack of size_t. And finally, to leave us all with a quote from Zed's rebuttal: "Over this next week I’m going to systematically take down more of my detractors as I’ve collected a large amount of information on them, their actual skill levels, and how they treat beginners. Stay tuned for more." Wow.

vacri 10y ago
> nor do I understand why he's angered that individuals know about undefined behavior in C If you read the first part of that same sentence, it should give you a clue.
kinkdr 10y ago
> Low level languages are tough I disagree. Low level languages, especially C, are the easiest to master. K&R book is the only book you need to read to know everything about C. All you need after you understand the fundamentals is a bit of discipline. C++ on the other hand is extremely difficult to master. Just have a look at the rules for Rvalue references and you will see what I mean. It may be easier for a complete novice to write some code that doesn't crash in C++ than it is in C, but not mastering it, or even be good at it.
- haberman 10y ago
  > K&R book is the only book you need to read to know everything about C. All you need after you understand the fundamentals is a bit of discipline. I am a huge C fan but this is not true at all. C has tons of pitfalls, especially with modern UB-aggressive optimizing compilers. There are a lot of rules you need to be aware of that are not naturally-occurring results of the fundamentals.
  - kinkdr 10y ago
    Out of curiosity, do you have an example? Maybe I live in a C reality distortion field. :)
    - haberman 10y ago
      There are so many to choose from. Here is one I just thought up: void free_circularly_linked_list(struct node *head) { struct node *tmp = head; do { struct node *next = tmp->next; free(tmp); tmp = next; } while (tmp != head); } Can you spot the undefined behavior?
      - Arnavion 10y ago
        The `tmp != head` comparion is UB because `head` is a dangling pointer after the first loop iteration, right?
        haberman 10y ago
        Yep! To do this properly requires something more like: void free_circularly_linked_list(struct node *head) { struct node *tmp = head->next; while (1) { if (tmp == head) { /* Has to be a separate case since even assigning * a dangling pointer is UB I believe? */ free(tmp); break; } else { struct node *next = tmp->next; free(tmp); tmp = next; } } }
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Read the review over at hentenar.com, though I've never read Zed's work. All I can say is the order of topics, the choice of topics and the quoted explanations would make for a very confused beginner. Especially the crusade he seems to have against strings and functions called incorrectly. That makes me think he should be teaching the language, not the language he wishes it were. Of course these are selective quotations so I can't draw too many conclusions. Going on my time teaching C, I wouldn't even mention Duff's device or safer, better strings at this level. There's better ways to introduce defensive programming, along with a discussion of the pros and cons. Oh, I'm past 50 so am clearly "doomed" and beyond help. Not that I'm sure what I need help with. Oh well. :)

by rhexs 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

> nor do I understand why he's angered that individuals know about undefined behavior in C If you read the first part of that same sentence, it should give you a clue.

kinkdr 10y ago

> Low level languages are tough I disagree. Low level languages, especially C, are the easiest to master. K&R book is the only book you need to read to know everything about C. All you need after you understand the fundamentals is a bit of discipline. C++ on the other hand is extremely difficult to master. Just have a look at the rules for Rvalue references and you will see what I mean. It may be easier for a complete novice to write some code that doesn't crash in C++ than it is in C, but not mastering it, or even be good at it.

haberman 10y ago
> K&R book is the only book you need to read to know everything about C. All you need after you understand the fundamentals is a bit of discipline. I am a huge C fan but this is not true at all. C has tons of pitfalls, especially with modern UB-aggressive optimizing compilers. There are a lot of rules you need to be aware of that are not naturally-occurring results of the fundamentals.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have an example? Maybe I live in a C reality distortion field. :)
  - haberman 10y ago
    There are so many to choose from. Here is one I just thought up: void free_circularly_linked_list(struct node *head) { struct node *tmp = head; do { struct node *next = tmp->next; free(tmp); tmp = next; } while (tmp != head); } Can you spot the undefined behavior?
    - Arnavion 10y ago
      The `tmp != head` comparion is UB because `head` is a dangling pointer after the first loop iteration, right?
      - haberman 10y ago
        Yep! To do this properly requires something more like: void free_circularly_linked_list(struct node *head) { struct node *tmp = head->next; while (1) { if (tmp == head) { /* Has to be a separate case since even assigning * a dangling pointer is UB I believe? */ free(tmp); break; } else { struct node *next = tmp->next; free(tmp); tmp = next; } } }

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Read the review over at hentenar.com, though I've never read Zed's work. All I can say is the order of topics, the choice of topics and the quoted explanations would make for a very confused beginner. Especially the crusade he seems to have against strings and functions called incorrectly. That makes me think he should be teaching the language, not the language he wishes it were. Of course these are selective quotations so I can't draw too many conclusions. Going on my time teaching C, I wouldn't even mention Duff's device or safer, better strings at this level. There's better ways to introduce defensive programming, along with a discussion of the pros and cons. Oh, I'm past 50 so am clearly "doomed" and beyond help. Not that I'm sure what I need help with. Oh well. :)