3 ms·

You base your 90% claim based on what? I have entirely different experience and I am using C++14 and C. K&R "C programming language" is from 1978 and it's still

by lossolo 10y ago

You base your 90% claim based on what? I have entirely different experience and I am using C++14 and C. K&R "C programming language" is from 1978 and it's still one of the best books about C still used in 2017. I see many stackoverflow answers updated from C++98 to C++11/14 and some even to C++17.

kibwen 10y ago
As someone whose first introduction to C was through K&R, and still has that torn and tattered copy on his bookshelf, the idea that we're still recommending K&R as "one of the best books about C" only validates arcticbull's (sadly-downvoted) point.
- lossolo 10y ago
  I don't share your opinion and most people I know that do C do not share it also. It's good base to get familiar with language, no one say you can't expand your knowledge further after reading this book. I've read some other "modern" books about C like "21st century C" but they are not for people that do not know C and they are not so good for people that know it. Can you provide any arguments to support what you wrote? What alternative you would propose for learning C? https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernighan/dp/0131103628 https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernigha... Read what majority of opinions say. It's really easy to criticize without giving better alternative.
- hellofunk 10y ago
  Keep in mind that I and the parent were mostly discussing C++, a very different language from C.
- prewett 10y ago
  K&R is so clearly written that I was able to understand it as a sixth grader. (At least, I felt like I did; subsequent events later proved that I did not understand pointers, but I don't think it was K&R's fault that a sixth grader didn't understand.) That's why it's still being recommended and the much thicker tomes also purporting to teach the C language have been forgotten. It's probably the same reason that your copy is torn and tattered.
  - kibwen 10y ago
    > It's probably the same reason that your copy is torn and tattered. Er, well I was also using it as a mousepad for about three years...

by lossolo 10y ago

kibwen 10y ago

As someone whose first introduction to C was through K&R, and still has that torn and tattered copy on his bookshelf, the idea that we're still recommending K&R as "one of the best books about C" only validates arcticbull's (sadly-downvoted) point.

lossolo 10y ago
I don't share your opinion and most people I know that do C do not share it also. It's good base to get familiar with language, no one say you can't expand your knowledge further after reading this book. I've read some other "modern" books about C like "21st century C" but they are not for people that do not know C and they are not so good for people that know it. Can you provide any arguments to support what you wrote? What alternative you would propose for learning C? https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernighan/dp/0131103628 https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernigha... Read what majority of opinions say. It's really easy to criticize without giving better alternative.
hellofunk 10y ago
Keep in mind that I and the parent were mostly discussing C++, a very different language from C.
prewett 10y ago
K&R is so clearly written that I was able to understand it as a sixth grader. (At least, I felt like I did; subsequent events later proved that I did not understand pointers, but I don't think it was K&R's fault that a sixth grader didn't understand.) That's why it's still being recommended and the much thicker tomes also purporting to teach the C language have been forgotten. It's probably the same reason that your copy is torn and tattered.
- kibwen 10y ago
  > It's probably the same reason that your copy is torn and tattered. Er, well I was also using it as a mousepad for about three years...