5 ms·

From the detailed notes: > "A pointer to a function serves to hide the name and source code of that function. Muddying the waters is not normally a purposeful

From the detailed notes: > "A pointer to a function serves to hide the name and source code of that function. Muddying the waters is not normally a purposeful routine in C programming, but with the security placed on software these days, there is an element of misdirection that seems to be growing." (p. 109) It’s like a book by Calvin’s dad.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
So why is it that an editor would let these statements pass. If, say, the publisher was Addison-Wesley or Prentice Hall, would they make it into print. I am sure that this is not the only programming book that made it to publication with a lack of meaningful editorial oversight.
- xenadu02 6y ago
  The worst part is the forward of the second edition says that the publisher hired a C programmer to review the book. That reviewer said "this book should not be published". They published it anyway!
  - _kst_ 6y ago
    I just downloaded a free sample of the Kindle edition. Here's an excerpt from the preface: "Prior to publication of the first edition, the manuscript was reviewed by a professional C programmer hired by the publisher. This individual expressed a firm opinion that the book should not be published because “it offers nothing new -- nothing the C programmer cannot obtain from the documentation provided with C compilers by the software companies.”" The author's claim is that there was a pressing need for a book that just explains C pointers rather than covering the whole language. (It would be interesting to see the rest of what the reviewer wrote.)
  - praptak 6y ago
    It sounds like a scam ad that tries to make it sound like they are revealing a well guarded secret. "Professional C programmers hate him! A BASIC programmer discovers a clever way to use pointers..."
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    And that's how we get flat-earthers. There is a line between crackpotness and groundbreakness which sometimes is not visible even for deep experts in the subject (though to be fair most of the time you only need high-school science to debunk most stuff). The reviewer should have been more explicit "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" rather than "don't publish this book"
wyldfire 6y ago
Ha! More like a book by someone who fell for his tall tales!

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

So why is it that an editor would let these statements pass. If, say, the publisher was Addison-Wesley or Prentice Hall, would they make it into print. I am sure that this is not the only programming book that made it to publication with a lack of meaningful editorial oversight.

xenadu02 6y ago
The worst part is the forward of the second edition says that the publisher hired a C programmer to review the book. That reviewer said "this book should not be published". They published it anyway!
- _kst_ 6y ago
  I just downloaded a free sample of the Kindle edition. Here's an excerpt from the preface: "Prior to publication of the first edition, the manuscript was reviewed by a professional C programmer hired by the publisher. This individual expressed a firm opinion that the book should not be published because “it offers nothing new -- nothing the C programmer cannot obtain from the documentation provided with C compilers by the software companies.”" The author's claim is that there was a pressing need for a book that just explains C pointers rather than covering the whole language. (It would be interesting to see the rest of what the reviewer wrote.)
- praptak 6y ago
  It sounds like a scam ad that tries to make it sound like they are revealing a well guarded secret. "Professional C programmers hate him! A BASIC programmer discovers a clever way to use pointers..."
- raverbashing 6y ago
  And that's how we get flat-earthers. There is a line between crackpotness and groundbreakness which sometimes is not visible even for deep experts in the subject (though to be fair most of the time you only need high-school science to debunk most stuff). The reviewer should have been more explicit "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" rather than "don't publish this book"

wyldfire 6y ago

Ha! More like a book by someone who fell for his tall tales!