Who's Afraid Of C++? 413
| Who's Afraid of C++? | |
| author | Steve Heller |
| pages | 486 |
| publisher | AP Professional |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | chromatic |
| ISBN | 0-12-339-97-4 |
| summary | In his unique approach, Steve Heller presents programming concepts and information as a conversation between teacher and student. |
The Scoop
Breaking with traditional lecture-on-paper format, Heller demystifies computers, programming, and C++ for absolute beginners. That's right -- he recruited a full-fledged novice user, capable of little more than e-mail and word processing, and turned her into a decent programmer while reviewing this book. (She became Mrs. Heller shortly after that.) Any computer owner with time, the ability to follow directions, and the willingness to learn could also become a programmer.The resulting text is more of a collaboration, or a commentary. Steve, the author, presents his information and then Susan, the novice, interrupts to ask questions. The big gamble is that her questions are the same that the average reader would ask. It largely pays off, only occasionally belaboring a point. (To be fair, it could also be called 'reinforcing a point.')
What's to Like?
Heller's writing is informal, but precise. Some might find it chatty, but beginners will find it more comforting than raw technical prose. His flow of topics makes sense (and does not copy the "Chapter two is everything to know about types, and chapter three is all about flow control" scheme other introductory teaching books steal from K&R). Little prior knowledge is necessary. Before actually programming, the book explores raw hardware, answering such questions as "What happens when you execute a program?", "What's a register and why is cache important?", and "How does source code turn into a running program?"Chapters tend to explain only one issue in detail -- how to use functions, for example, or the basics of a class. Heller states his objectives up front, and sticks closely to them. Each chapter has two sets of exercises, one in the middle and the other at the end. Answers follow, along with more dialogue. It's not enough simply having one correct bit of code, without someone to explain why it is correct, and why some common answers aren't complete. This decision pays off.
Though discussing weighty technical matters, there's a sense of general friendliness. With well-chosen metaphors (datatypes are kinda like odometers), occasionally goofy examples (a pumpkin-weighing-contest control program), and plenty of conversations when things get heavy, C++ isn't so scary after all. Credit Susan for much of this. If you find yourself thinking along the same lines as you study, you'll make it.
What's to Consider?
The book covers about half of a reasonably paced introductory Computer Science course. It also predates the ANSI standard and the STL, though a fair treatment of the latter would easily double the size. Readers who finish the book and the exercises will be fully capable of producing their own useful programs, but will need additional information on common libraries, algorithms, and more object-oriented programming. They'll also have avoided some of the traps awaiting the unwary novice, as Heller practices a fairly tight methodology.More technical readers already familiar with programming and at least one C-based language might find the pace slow and the extra explanations unnecessary. Heller's target audience is definitely the neophyte, not the experienced developer. The latter might question the subject matter covered. Why build a vector class instead of using C-style arrays? Why not C-style strings? I suspect the author is more concerned with helping his students avoid the kind of pitfalls C++ was designed to work around. It may not be the traditional approach, but it's valid and it will produce decent programmers, who can learn C++ on its own merits.
The Summary
Steve Heller's pulled off quite a feat -- producing a book that assumes very little, yet produces people who understand programming. There's not as much information presented as in a "Learn the Language in X days/weeks/hours" book, but it's more accessible and better geared to a true beginner. For a gentle and effective introduction to programming and C++, give this book a try.The CD-ROM contains complete source code of all program listings, as well as the excellent DJGPP compiler (yes, it's for DOS).
Read this book online at www.steveheller.com or purchase it at Fatbrain.
Table of Contents
- Prologue
- Hardware Fundamentals
- Basics of Programming
- More Basics
- Functional Literacy
- Taking Inventory
- Stringing Along
- Down the Garden Path
- Tying Up Loose Ends
C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:1)
First of all, the main reason people are afraid of computers is that they don't know how they think. If everybody had a basic discrete math class and an introduction to concepts of computing, C++ would be a lot less unfriendly.
Personally, I think C++ is a bad teaching language because computers don't think in objects. They think in memory locations and in blocks of code - exactly like C, nothing like C++. What people need to learn to do programming is how a computer thinks - and C++ ain't gonna do that, buddy. I think the best introduction to programming I've ever seen is an O'Reilly book called "Practical C Programming" (the Cow book).
Is that line trademarked? (Score:5)
- Who's afraid of Unix?
- Who's afraid of Relativity?
- Who's afraid of Motorcycle Maintanence?
- Who's afraid of Sex?
Yes, let the money roll!Real Challenge is turning CLI graphical :P (Score:1)
Imagine connecting a few icons with a wire to pipe stuff between them, then filling in parameters in a popup window for each of the icons. This would become a new icon, that you could drop data on in order to have it processed.
Programming for dummies could and should be that easy in order to free the end user to use the full power of computing.
Not everybody should learn programming; everybody should be able to start programming with smallest possible effort.
This stuff into KParts/Bonobo?
It is irrational fears week! (Score:3)
There's a Reason Why. (Score:2)
-Rich
Who's afraid of C++? Me, that's who (Score:1)
Despite the fact that I can and have programmed a lot of C++ stuff at home and at work, for some reason it just doesn't seem to stick, and I find myself constantly annoyed by minor language niggles and an obscure syntax that sometimes just tries too hard to be concise.
Now, I've been programming for years and I find C++ difficult to get into sometimes, so if this book can really make it accessible for the user then that's half a miracle by itself. Of course, if the lady in question being taught C++ became his wife soon after, it does raise the question of how much "private tutoring" she was getting... :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
this reminds me of another book... (Score:2)
My cousin that went to lehigh gave it to me when i was 12. apparently, the book was being used by lib. arts students to get a grasp of the technical courses.
It was presented in a humorous, light, yet incredibly informative way... It traced the history of computing, from abacuses to differential engines, and made the whole thing very interesting.
And, it had a good level of detail in it. It wasnt a gloss over the topic and pretend they've covered it. It went into boolean and gating fairly extensively.
Not bad for a cartoon book.
Sounds good (Score:2)
However (there's always a however):
There is absolutely no substitute for the hacker-type mindset - the obsessive compulsive (say it ain't so) need to explore a system for yourself, to produce programs which should be beyond your capabilities - and which were, until you put your mind to them. If someone doesn't have that raw curiosity and the need (the NEED) to know everything about a system, then they're never going to be anything more than a "quite good" programmer.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Re:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:1)
And don't call me `buddy'.
Cool (Score:1)
Re:Extreme Frist Psot (Score:1)
He thinks that Mac beats fine Tux
however, can't spell.
if ($post eq "finished")
{
print "sig\n";
Initial steps into programming (Score:2)
<cough> I'm sorry? (Score:2)
With well-chosen metaphors (datatypes are kinda like odometers)
Ignoring that this is a simile and not a metaphor, does that make a lick of sense to anyone? Datatypes are kinda like odometers? Fingers are kinda like distributor caps. I thought I knew C++ but obviously I missed something in my studies
How is a raven like a writing desk
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
You've opened a Pandora's Box (Score:4)
IMHO, it doesn't matter what language you program in(I progam in several, including C++), the important point is that you understand the basic tenets of programming, and can use these concepts to program in any language! If this book can help people learn that, more power to them!
This looks like a good thing =:-) (Score:2)
This has been missing in the age of the booming tech economy and the whole "professional image". I think the world needs this sort of a thing, so that novices can begin to experement, because it's fresh minds that generate a lot of the innovation, and i think that extending a bridge to users is a good thing.
Learning at the lowest levels first? (Score:2)
Learn C++ in Five Minutes! (Score:5)
I know what you're thinking: there's no way I can learn C++ in five (count 'em) five minutes. Well stop being such a doubting loser. Here's what you do:
Step One: On the qualifications section of your resume, write, "I know C++." Feel free to put other things, such as "I speak thirteen different languages," "I've slept with Pamela Lee Anderson", and of course, "I am omnipotent."
Step Two: Get Hired!
Step Three: When your manager approaches you to actually work on a C++ project, immediately run to your nearest Asian immigrant and pay him 50 cents an hour to do the project for you! Don't feel bad, your manager did the same thing to get in his position!
Step Four: Watch as the money, women and strange magic powers are bestowed upon you.
It's just that simple!
-Bgs006
LostBrain [lostbrain.com]
What's a "steep learning curve" (Score:4)
Re:Real Challenge is turning CLI graphical :P (Score:2)
What, you mean like LabView [ni.com]? It's a graphical programming language - mainly intended for controlling lab equipment, but surprisingly general purpose.
Edric.
Larry Gonick (Score:2)
Book 1 is "big bang" to "the fall of Rome" (as I recall). Book 2 backs up a little bit and changes geography to look at the history of China. I'm expecting Book 3 any time now since it's been several years since the last book appeared.
Book 1 was mostly familiar to me--the same-old "first the tribes, then the Greeks, then the Romans" stuff (although told in a very entertaining way). Book 2, though, was totally new: We don't get much non-European history here in the US. No wonder we don't understand "those Chinese".
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Education good! (Score:2)
The power of the personal computer; the power to develop their own solutions, should not be confined to the rarified realm of programmers and engineers. _Everyone_ can benefit from this, and the more this information is brought out into the open, the better. I recently bought a friend of mine a "Visual BASIC for Dummies" book. He was, at first, a bit fearful of it, but once he started, he started really enjoying it. HE called me once about a bug, and when I showed him what the problem was (i'm certainly no VB expert, I work in C++ primarily), he immediately _understood_ it, saying something like "Of course! I checked everything else but that." One could see his esteem growing; it made me feel really good.
Regards, JohnRe:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:3)
All of these are abstractions at some level of what's really going on. There's no inherent reason why your favourite level of abstraction (memory locations and code blocks) is any better a place to start learning than the object level -- and a few reasons why it's worse. The way people think is closer to the object level (though still quite far).
And discrete math?! Honestly, I think you could make a better case for cooking classes. The practical experience of trying to follow well-written and poorly-written recipes will help a novice programmer out a heck of a lot more than a detailed understanding of set theory ever could.
I agree. (Score:2)
I've read it. In fact I started out with it. (Score:3)
Most of the C books I've read don't even try to get to strings until halfway through, and make it a rather complicated introduction by making you understand data types and arrays first. Mr. Heller's point is that, with C++ at least, you don't really have to know what's going on with strings to use them, and that it's easier to understand the fine details of things once you've become familiar with them through usage. He does that a lot in the book.
My C teachers and classes have always seemed extremely dry after being introduced to C++ by Steve Heller. If anyone is curious about learning to program, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this book as a starting point. There's also a follow-up book, "Who's Afraid of More C++", also working with Susan.
Mr. Heller also seems rather accessible be e-mail, but please don't hold him to that because I said so.
-N.
Steep learning curves... (Score:2)
C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:5)
While it is certainly an extremely powerful tool, it is also a gigantic hodgepodge of different programming paradigms. You can be object-oriented, you can be procedural, you can have it look like assembly code; this is flexibility, but only with a corresponding reduction in accessibility.
Now, I don't really know if there is a perfect language for introductions to programming. The much-maligned Pascal is a good language for learning structured programming, which makes it a good step towards C and then C++. Functional programming is easier to pick up but requires a certain amount of intellect to grasp the ideas of abstraction that it relies upon. (I happen to think that since understanding abstraction is critical to being a good programmer, everyone should do some functional programming.) For that I would choose Scheme in one of its reduced flavors. Scheme also has the advantage of having simple syntax, though it seems a bit unnatural to non-engineering types. For object-oriented instruction, I think Java is a good choice, for a bunch of reasons, which I won't enumerate since they will be obvious and I'm tired of typing.
It makes me cringe when I see a new "Learn C++ in 24 hours" title on the bookshelf, because I know those texts will screw people up. Learning to program is a challenge enough without having to learn C++ at the same time.
-m
For the complete novice (Score:2)
Optimization (Score:3)
Re:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:2)
Re:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:2)
If you want to see what can really be done in the way of helping programmers to think about the problem rather than all the annoying details of the solution, look into languages like Smalltalk, Erlang, and OCAML, all of which are vastly better than C++.
Complete Idiot's Guide to Multiprocessing called.. (Score:3)
;-)
Re:Can someone give 1 good reason to use C++ over (Score:2)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Really? (Score:2)
void main()
{
seed(time);
random();
...
yeah, chunky pseudocode, but like, I think that I could get a monkey to type something akin to that in an hour if I was sitting with them.
Re:Can someone give 1 good reason to use C++ over (Score:2)
This is one approach, the one I regretably followed. I just mentioned that way of doing things because you sound a bit like a die-hard C programer, and maybe you'll feel more comfortable with this small subset of C++. The best path of course would be to think different (tm) from the very beginning, using the STL and programming generically when there is a need.
But the real good reason to use C++ in my opinion is its power and flexibility (that multi-paradigm thing, if you like long words). I don't think there is any other language that can be so easily adapted to one's personal needs or the needs of a given project. Even if your need is to be close to the machine. And the tradeoffs are small too. With today's compilers (I use Borland 5.0 and GNU gcc) there is little difference in the code produced. Some (very credible) people claim that in some circumstances C++ will produce even smaller and faster code than C, but I haven't been able to duplicate that experiment.
This is all pretty obvious and well discussed in many places, there must be someone arguing the same thing, even as I type, so maybe I missed the point in your question.
Re:Learning at the lowest levels first? (Score:2)
I still remember the little boxes hopping along the conveyer belt towards the ALU where they would be shelved until an operator came along =:-)
C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:4)
Why on earth would anyone try and teach a newcommer to programming something like C++? It's my view that any langage based on the C syntax is not suitable for beginners.
Pascal, Python, maybe Java are all great languages for a beginning programmer.
I'm sure that it is possible to teach some people C++ as their first language. I'd argue that they could have learnt something like Pascal in less time, and have a better understanding of it. C/C++ syntax is too weird for a beginner, and you need to understand too much about memory & pointer to do anything useful. I mean... no native string type in C? How stupid is that when you think about it?
I got your C++ right here-THE LARS-O-MATIC (Score:2)
©2000 Lord Kano
Although this code is GPLed, I request that if you make any modifications based upon it, please give me a little credit
for writing the original code.
This code was written to be as easily portable as possible. It was written on an old Power Mac 7300/180, but it should
compile and run under just about any OS.
The LarsSpeak array is comprised of real phrases from Lars, as well as a some that I made up but still sound LarsLike.
*/
#define __LARS_ULRICH DickHead
#define ___METALLICA Sold_Out_Commercialized_Whiny_Babies
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
string phrase[19];//Array of Lars Speak
//function prototypes
void setphrases(void);//Fill the phrases array with Lars Speak
void larsspeak(int);//Send to the screen, int times, an example of Lars Speak
//end function prototypes
int main(){
srand(time (0));//seed the random number generator with the value pulled from the clock.
setphrases();
char ch;
string filename;
string *fn;
fn =
while (filename != "quit"){//Repeat this loop until the user enters quit at the following prompt
cout > filename;
cout c_str());//Open the filename the user specified at the above prompt
if (!mystream.is_open()) {
if (filename != "quit") {cout "FILE NOT OPENED ERROR!";}//If we can't open a file that was specified by the user, first check to see if we were told to quit, if not give an error.
goto here;
}
while (mystream){//get each character sequentially
mystream.get(ch);
if (ch == '\n'){//if the character is a newline, LARSIFY
cout " ";
larsspeak(1);
goto here;
}
if(mystream) cout ch;
if (ch == ' '){//if we encounter a space
if (!(rand() % 4)){//once out of every four times, LARSIFY
larsspeak(1);
}
}
here:;
}
mystream.close();//when we're done, close the file for good measure.
}
return 0;
}
void larsspeak (int i){
for (int x = 0; x i; x++){
cout phrase[(rand()%19)];
}
}
void setphrases(void){
phrase[0] = "um, ";
phrase[1] = "oh, ";
phrase[2] = "well, ";
phrase[3] = "James says, ";
phrase[4] = "according to my lawyer, ";
phrase[5] = "like, ";
phrase[6] = "uh, ";
phrase[7] = "ya see, ";
phrase[8] = "I mean, ";
phrase[9] = "I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I have used AOL a couple of times to check some hockey scores, but I'm no expert at this stuff, ";
phrase[10] = "ya know, ";
phrase[11] = "OK, ";
phrase[12] = "basically ";
phrase[13] = "and this is really the simplest way of saying it, ";
phrase[14] = "I think ";
phrase[15] = "well, it's like this,";
phrase[16] = "for one reason, and one reason only, ";
phrase[17] = "I'm sorry, all of a sudden your mind goes blank, ";
phrase[18] = "like I said before, ";
}
//Thank you
A less horrible introductory language.. (Score:5)
The syntax is very intuitive: blocks are denoted by indentation, nothing has to be declared. It is very easy to just start hacking on an idea without knowing much Python, learning from the docs while proceeding.
Although not a 'real' compiled language, I'd recommend it as the introduction to ideas of programming. After that, learning other languages is more or less a matter of syntax only. Plus, it great for all kinds of scripting.. :-)
Re:If only he had chosen a _real_ language (Score:2)
I still want to address your points individually, though, because a lot of what you're saying is not really Perl-specific and, I think, represents a very limited understanding of programming.
1. "Perl is slow." Well, that depends. For many tasks, Perl (or Python, etc.) is fast enough. Then again, for a very complex application, it can be very challenging to get good performance out of C++, because one means of controlling complexity is to develop high-level abstractions and then write most of the program using those abstractions. If the abstractions are poorly chosen, or poorly implemented, performance suffers badly. This is not a point in C++'s favor, since it forces you to do a lot of annoying, low-level dirty work yourself (thread interactions, memory management, etc.). Anyone who thinks C or C++ is necessarily fast ought to spend a week using Windows 98 on a slow Pentium. In contrast, a well-designed higher-level language (e.g. Erlang or OCAML) supplies you with a set of well-implemented abstractions proven over many years of use in a wide variety of programs.
2. "Perl makes inefficient use of resources." Same argument as #1, really; CPU cycles (speed) being just one example of system resources.
3. "Perl is hard to maintain." Well, I can't help but agree with that one. Then again, I think C++ is pretty hard to maintain, too. Its simplistic static type system and association of polymorphism with class inheritance tends to result in extremely brittle designs that don't age well.
4. "Perl is unnecessary." I don't think it's just Perl you're objecting to here; it sounds like you think every program, including simple shell scripts, should be written in C++. I have to say that sounds kind of crazy to me.
5. "C++ programming is a valuable skill." Well, that's true today, but who knows -- five years from now, it might be yesterday's language, replaced by whatever hot new language (or paradigm) comes along. It's happened before, you know.
Problem is with colleges (Score:2)
Object-oriented programming design is a great way to organize a problem into manageable, scalable abstractions. Everything you learn in college about the virtues of OOP is well founded, would anyone here disagree?
The problem is C++. It's not a very good OOP. Would most people here agree its a pretty harsh hack of the C syntax? When compared to (IMO) the mother of all OOPs: LISP?
Students that never learned C++ on their own learn it in college, usually from a TA. Now I'm not knocking TA's, but they usually have zero practical experience with large projects. And to compound the problem, they learned their C++ programming skills from... ANOTHER TA! And so on. See the problem? (And the worst part is: would you want to hire someone who just learned how to code in C++ during their 2nd or 3rd years in college! Companies do. I want to hire someone who's been programming before they were pubescent!)
So not only is the OOP paradigm lost by lame C++ instruction (here's printf, write, fwrite, and 'cout ', gee, that makes sense...), the entirety of programming education is at risk by the lack of truly knowledgable instructors. And then these kids go out and program for a living! No wonder there is so mush bullshit buggy code in the commercial world.
Ok, sorry about the rant. But any attempts to teach any computer concept with C++ seems to me to be hopelessly flawed and will end up doing more harm then good. Teach with LISP from the top and C from the bottom, and assembly from the real bottom.
I agree with the 'problem' and 'solution' domain approach. OOP on top so that there is flexibility and scalability in the entire design; procedural C on the bottom for portability and high-performance.
C++ -- the great hack, the facilitator of even greater hacks -- has done horrors to the world that will take decades to undo.
---
Re:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:2)
Re:C++: The PL/1 of the 90s. B*L*O*A*T!!! (Score:2)
PL/1 was lots easier to learn. What it did was more consistent. It's real problem was that the compilers were too large for the Apple II - CP/M generation of machines until fairly late in their cycle, but Basic, C, and Pascal could run on all of them. (And to go back a bit further, it wouldn't fit on a PDP/8.)
Of course it didn't help it that IBM owned the language, and wasn't interested in microcomputers.
I rather liked PL/1. I also like Ada95. Neither is bloated in comparison with C++. Both are rather logical and easy to learn.
OTOH, neither PL/1 nor Ada95 have a good adaptation to GUI's. Java does, but it's still v. slow (when last I checked a few months ago).
What currently seems to me as the best choice it to use Python or Ruby or some such and recode the time critical routines into C. C++ could probably be used here, but C is still lots more portable (there doesn't seem to be any rule as to how the C++ compiler mangles the routine name).
What the ACCU thinks of this book (Score:2)
- http://www.accu
.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w00201 1a [accu.org] - http://www.accu
.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w00136 5a [accu.org]
The second of the two reviews is also a review of The C++ Training Guide by Steve Heller. There is also a review of both "Who's Afraid of More C++?" and "Who's Afraid of Java?" here [accu.org].Heller is a prolific author, but the ACCU only recomend his book on Motif.
Thad
Re:Steep learning curves... (Score:2)
--
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:2)
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:3)
Why, exactly? The C syntax is used by C, C++, Java, and Perl, which are arguably the most common languages in use today. Why would you teach beginners something that they would never use, rather then something they would use everyday as programmers? What syntax do you find easier to understand?
Pascal, Python, maybe Java are all great languages for a beginning programmer.
Umm... Java is pure C/C++ syntax.
C/C++ syntax is too weird for a beginner, and you need to understand too much about memory & pointer to do anything useful.
This is simply not true. I worked as a TA for an intro programming class taught in C++, and they never even mentioned pointers. The only discussion of memory was when I would explain to the students why their programs crashed when they went beyond the bounds of an array. Otherwise, they were perfectly functional without any such knowledge.
Of course, to be competent in C++ requires a thorough understanding of memory issues, but we're talking about beginners here.
I mean... no native string type in C? How stupid is that when you think about it?
You're absolutely correct, it is stupid. However, since the topic here is C++, and C++ does have a native string type, what the hell is your point?
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:3)
I've tried to teach many people to program. The first time I was called upon for this was when I was 13 and one of my mom's friends had purchased a Commodore VIC-20 thinking she and her husband could automate their business with it. My mom sent me over to this woman's house to teach her how to program BASIC so she could automate the accounting system. Yeah, that was just tons of fun. Fortunately, she gave up after a few sessions. And I got some nice home-made cookies out of it, so it wasn't a total loss for me!
Anyway, I've been informally teaching people to program, with varying degrees of success, ever since. In all this time, perhaps the most important thing I've learned is that the biggest hurdle potential programmers face is learning to think programmatically. Or, as someone else said, to think like the computer.
It doesn't matter whether I was teaching someone to program in BASIC, Pascal, C, or Java, the stumbling block was the same. I'm not a professional instructor, so I wasn't able to get some people over that hump. But those who did get over it found that, within a short while, they didn't need me to teach them anymore. They could pick up the rest on their own. (Of course, those who didn't get over the hump didn't need me anymore either, so either way I was out of a job!)
I believe C++ would be just as appropriate for this as anything else, but as with BASIC and a host of other languages, people who only know C++ tend to have a harder time understanding how the computer works. C++ adds a layer of abstraction that, while useful to the experienced programmer, doesn't help neophytes to learn other, non-object-oriented languages.
Still, I'll probably add the book in question to my collection of "how to program" books. I'm always interested in seeing how people try to teach one another (unless it's a "learn X in Y hours/days/weeks" book or any title that insults the purchaser's intelligence ("...for Dummies," "Complete Idiot's guide to...", etc.) - I avoid all of those titles like the worthless detritus that they are).
You should start with C not C++ (Score:2)
C++ also seems to be turning into a buzzword now. "OOh its C, but its got a ++ after it, it must be better!" Well I have a new language called D+=2 clearly it's far superior to C++.
My question is, why don't people use C instead of C++? I find it hard to hide from myself that a program runs linearly and try to hide that fact behind classes, inheritance and all those other C++ features. A program can be designed and run better than C++ in C, but C++ has more hype running around it.
Giving a carpenter a nailgun doesn't make him a better builder than someone with a hammer. He can just screw things up faster.
Re:Learn C++ in Five Minutes! (Score:3)
Step Six: Asian dude goes to work for SGI, pulls six figures. Your project is delayed. Senior Engineer asked you about progress, realizes you're full of it, informs senior management, shafting follows.
Step Seven: Get desperate, spam hundreds of newsgroups with "make money fast!" schemes to help you get out of debt.
Step Eight: After changing several ISPs and diffusing three different mailbombs, reality dawns on you - there is no fast way to do anything.
Step Nine: go back to school, get a degree, do things the way everyone else does.
Step Ten: get a job, life, girlfriend, family, wife, kids..
Step Eleven: Retire, spend 3 years in retirement, die.
Re:Can someone give 1 good reason to use C++ over (Score:2)
There are tons of reasons. Here's an interesting one:
In the program I am writing, dynamically allocated data deletes itself when you are done with it, the same way java does. You just have to use my smart pointer class in the place of regular pointers. They work exactly the same syntactically, but they keep a reference count for whatever they are pointing to and free it once nothing is pointing to it anymore. No more memory leaks!
Now, this is not ideal for all situations, but it is something you just can't do easily and transparently in C. In my project, it has been incredibly useful, as alot of the code involves distributing and re-distributing resources to many distant places, and it is not always clear who's job it is to free some memory. But with smart pointers, it is not a problem.
Also, when using smart arrays, I can stick in bounds-checking for debug builds, which is pretty useful.
------
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Non-inline function definitions belong in the .cpp file ... unless they're template definitions, in which case they belong in the .h file ... unless they have the export keyword, but I don't know how many compilers support that. Constants are defined in the .h file, but static variables and have to be initialized in the .cpp file. And every file has to be wrapped in #ifdef ... #endif to prevent it from being #included twice.
And when you're dealing with the Microsoft compiler, the compiler sends as little information to the linker as it can get away with ... so link-time errors, rather than providing clues about where to hunt for the problem in source code, refer to object files, pre-compiled header files, and munged function names. (Is g++ more helpful in this respect?)
--
And apparently this book gets you chicks too. (Score:2)
That's right -- he recruited a full-fledged novice user, capable of little more than e-mail and word processing, and turned her into a decent programmer while reviewing this book. (She became Mrs. Heller shortly after that.)
So, all I need to do is pick my target babe^H^H^H^H new user, get her to read this book, and she marries me? Man, a whole "Nutshell" series of books could come out of this...
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:3)
It's not exactly the syntax of C that is difficult for beginners, moreso it is the low-levelishness of C that makes it hard to learn. Beginning programmers need to learn how to formulate a plan and write it out (make algorithms), they do not need to worry about shooting themselves in the <insert body part here>.
Pascal, Python, maybe Java are all great languages for a beginning programmer.
Pascal was supposed to be a teaching language and does the job very well, I agree. Never used Python, but I've also never heard anything bad about it. Java is very nice with its inability to do serious harm, its garbage collector is helpful too.
I'm sure that it is possible to teach some people C++ as their first language.
Believe it or not, it's possible to teach C++ like Pascal. You just need to avoid everything that resembles C. Introduce the for, if, while, String class, cin, cout and basic math functions, and you're in business.
How to Get Girls (Score:4)
Heller demystifies computers, programming, and C++ for absolute beginners. That's right -- he
recruited a full-fledged novice user, capable of little more than e-mail and word processing, and turned her into a decent programmer while reviewing this book. (She became Mrs. Heller shortly after that.)
So that's what I've been doing wrong! No more singles bars for me, from now on I'm teaching programming to cute female newbies until I find Ms. Right.
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Re:You've opened a Pandora's Box (Score:3)
I agree with you. I want to point out another problem, though. In addition to the problem of thinking like a programmer, I find that it's harder to get people interested in modern languages because it's generally much more difficult to do fun graphical things with them.
Take the first language I learned, for example: Atari BASIC. I learned it using the slim little book with the silver cover that came with the Atari 400 my parents bought me. After reading that little book (I don't have it with me, but it was about 100 pages long, with large type and many illustrations), I was able to use BASIC to draw on the screen. I could use FOR...NEXT loops to cycle colors among many lines to get a neat effect. I could actually move a dot around on the screen using my joystick.
That felt powerful. To make a program that responds graphically to my input was just mind-blowing at the time. I quickly wrote a little game, and - WOW - I felt like I could do anything if I just put in the time.
Compare that with today's computer books. Friendly or no, the books teach you how to write little boring text-based programs, for the most part. Maybe they teach you how to use a RAD tool to make a WIMP interface, but still the program itself is just a "get some text input from the keyboard, process it, and output some text" program. That is boring!
It'd be nice to write some graphics routines for C that are as easy to use as the old Atari BASIC graphics commands (SETCOLOR; COLOR; PLOT X,Y; DRAWTO A,B) and input commands (if not joystick, at least some info on using a keyboard to do game input).
Take those commands and some basic housekeeping code, then distribute them with a book on learning C. The book could still focus on the processing and structure stuff, but if something was thrown in there that would give the person some ability to make something fun and exciting after learning just a little bit.
That's a tremendous incentive for neophyte programmers, in my opinion. It not only gives them some warm fuzzies when they see it, it's also a lot more exciting to show someone else than any of the text based stuff.
Re: Ada, and CS programs in general. (Score:2)
With all due respect (Score:2)
Re:You've opened a Pandora's Box (Score:2)
Assuming we have a complete newby at hand who wants to become a skilled computer programmer, there are several things we need to teach him:
- What is a computer, how does it work in general. Toying around with assembly can be usefull at this stage. It's also important to learn about bits & bytes and other computer jargon.
- As soon as you got a clear image of how a computer works, it is time to learn a language. Prerably, a simple language is chosen (e.g. basic) but if necessary you can also take something more advanced.
- Standard libraries. This is the part that takes the longest. To avoid that you reinvent the wheel it is essential that you know your tools. If your are doing C++, knowledge of the STL is essential. When doing Java you need to be able to find usefull classes and components in the various frameworks
Of course you can do these things in parallel. A good programmer can switch languages easily. I know I can learn C++ pretty quick since I understand all of the underlying principles. I have programmed before in other languages (C, Java, Basic etc.) and know that my biggest obstacle in learning C++ won't be the language but learning to use the stl efficiently.
In addition to the above, it is also usefull to learn about different styles of programming. Most novice programmers start by learning how to do procedural programming. At this point in time, however, there is really no excuse for a good programmer not understanding OO. If you want to laugh, try examining the first Java code of people who used to code in C or basic. I had the privilege of doing so some time ago. The poor fellow had crammed his entire program into a single class. He used the class variables as global variables and was simply applying the tricks he had used in pascal before. Also he was mostly ignoring the classes provided by the Java API. Strangly enough his program sort of worked.
After mastering & understanding procedural and OO programming you might look a bit further: generative programming, functional programming and logic programming good starting points. Also it is usefull to learn about program design methods. If you are doing OO, look at "Design Patterns" and learn how to use UML (not just the class diagrams).
Further expertise can only be gained by practice. There's no way you can do all of the above in a few weeks or even months. Books such as discussed in this article are a nice starting point for anybody new to programming, to bad it is limited to C++.
Coding
class IMAMonkey {
public static void main(String ps[])
{
System.out.println("I'm a coding monkey");
}
}
can be done by pretty much anybody but fully understanding what it does and why it is written down like that takes a bit longer.
Re:A less horrible introductory language.. (Score:2)
I'm trying Python out right now trying to teach my 11 year old nephew programming. (Meanwhile, yes, at work, I struggle with C++ and hope to get it to "do what I mean" in a few months...sigh)
The nice thing about Python is that it's so easy and intuitive that I can teach it as I learn it, not being a proficient Python programmer by any stretch of the imagination, but having plenty of background in C.
There are two things I'd like to see, though:
Like many kids, the games he plays on his computer these days are so flashy, boomy and interactive that his first attempts with a programming language can not hope to compete with "Joystick controlled maneuvering of a skateboarder with sound effects and moving, pseudo 3D scenery."
Any suggestions for addressing either of these 2 issues would be most appreciated.
A little background on myself (Score:2)
Oh yeah. (Score:2)
Re:Dissing PL/I (Score:2)
Am I old or something ?
I've written a little PL/1, ported a _huge_ Algol 60 program to FORTRAN, and coded a fair bit in object Pascal(s), C++ and now a little Java. (CORAL, Eiffel and a few weirdies too.)
PL/1 was bloatedness incarnate. It was bloated in places that didn't need to be bloated, and added nothing for their being bloated. The whole thing looked like bad editing on the output of a roomful of skilled language designers; no one piece was bad, but there was no reason why there had to be quite so many ways to do something. No-one had stood up in the meeting and said "Why are we adding that feature ?".
A mil-spec Cadillac, if ever there was.
C++ is ugly, but it's ugly for a reason. It's an evolutionary answer to the problem "Take the One True Geek Language and stick objects onto it". It's still one of the world's all-time greatest Hacks, and I still hate it.
The idea of teaching newbies C++ as a first language horrifies me; not because it will produce bad C++ coders, but because it's a very slow way of teaching people advanced OO concepts. It's also going to drive away an awful lot of people who simply don't have the dedication to suffer through their thousandth bad pointer error.
Why not teach Java ? It has a good a claim to being a "competent teaching language" as most others, it gives immediate and satisfying results (unlike some scripting platforms), and it has commercial relevance.
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:2)
Because the point of *teaching* is for the student to *learn* the general concepts. That's why there are such things as intro courses. Because shoving info into the brain != learning.
Um...wrong. Sure, superficially, a lot of the common flow control and scoping constructs use the same tokens, like braces and parenthesis, and some of the operators are the same. But that is where it stops. Method, variable and class declarations and definitions are very different. Java has no operator overloading or pointers, so all those operators go out the door. It has some unique keywords and operators and concepts. There is no such thing as structs or memory allocation, and besides a handful of primitives, everything else is a full-fledged object.
And likewise you can "learn" to drive without knowing with the lines on the road or signs mean. I would really like to be present to see how exactly C++ was taught without the mention of pointers or memory, and whether the "teaching" was actually resulting in learning and understanding, or just rote copying by the students. IMO to learn and use C/C++ *correctly*, an understanding of memory allocation, and pointers is fundamental and prerequisite. Arrays and objects themselves don't make sense in a C++ world without mention of memory allocation and pointers, and I can only guess that students were just blindly trusting the instructor that things worked the way they did instead of understanding. Learning C++ as a beginning language is like learning to drive a normal car, on a tank. Sure, in *general* things will be the same: you still need to know how to accelerate and decelerate and turn. But all the mechanisms will be different: you will have complicated levers and guages; and you will randomly blow up or smash stuff without understanding.
Still, IMHO, the risk of being distracted by confusing high-level stuff, and the "scare" factor, indicate to me that C++ is not the ideal beginning language. I played with BASIC and officially "learned" on Pascal. Sure I don't use those today, but Pascal was really useful in easily cementing the general concepts.
Re:A less horrible introductory language.. (Score:2)
If I indent a line of code with a tab, and another line of code with 8 spaces, are they part of the same block? Or do I have to use 8 tabs to have the same indentaion as 8 spaces? What if I'm using an editor that has tabs every 4 spaces instead of 8?
IMO C/C++/Java's {/} sytax is much better, and Pascal's begin/end isn't far behind (if a little long-winded)
What does perl use?
Re:You should start with C not C++ (Score:2)
C++ will just make things more confusing for a new programmer.
That's a good point, but I'd argue two cases against it:
C++ also seems to be turning into a buzzword now. "OOh its C, but its got a ++ after it, it must be better!"
Now ? That's a problem from ten years ago. I barely notice it these days -- in fact, few non-geeks still remember there was a C beforehand.
a program runs linearly
They don't.
Programs haven't run linearly for a decade; since windowing systems became commonplace. Machine code might still run linearly, but any macroscopic non-trivial "program" these days, even in VB, needs to worry about asynchronous events, let alone threading models. This is all horrible and complicated, and best handled by good class structure in a good run-time environment.
Re:C++ as a teaching language/programming obscure? (Score:2)
Please - stop generalizing. I'm a C++ programmer; I first learned C++, not C. I'm perfectly comfortable with pointers, and willing to use them when it makes sense. I'm also perfectly willing to write a perl script, or a VB test harness, or a bit of assembly if I need to. I can work in C if need by, though I prefer the C-subset of C++ for a number of reasons. I've seen poorly written C programs; would you like me to take that as an example of exactly how suitable C is as a development language?
Languages are tools. If C allows you to express an idea simply and effeciently, then it gets the job done. C++ is better than C in expressing some concepts and ideas. Perl is better than either in other arenas. A good developer understands this, and works to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the tools, so that s/he can use the most suitable tool for a task. A poor developer learns one tool and winds up with a "All I have is a hammer, therefore everything must be a nail" mentality.
Any possible brain-damage that I perpetuate in my programs can be traced back to my BASIC heritage :-)
Async event handling (Score:3)
I'm curious as to what sort of apps you write, if you haven't yet found C to be painful ?
In recent years, most of us are writing desktop apps for windowing systems. These need to respond to mouseclicks, messages from other windows, system or network events, all sorts of things. Now this is still hard in an OO environment, but it's an absolute nightmare in C ! Anyone remember first edition Petzold, and the horrors of the Windows message loop ? Nasty, nasty days, and we had the program bugs and hangs to prove it.
Writing good GUI event handlers is still hard, but with an OO environment it only needs to be done once, by the environment author, then just subclassed by the application author.
Those of us not writing GUI apps are probably mainly writing back-end objects. I dont know where you'd begin, trying to serve one of potentially 50 different method calls, all from C.
No, no, not the comfy LISP ! (Score:2)
There are problems with C++, certainly, but I hate to think of any problem where the solution is LISP !
I'd rather write Smalltalk than LISP, and that's saying some...
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:2)
Perl? Perl?
Unless you already happen to be a programmer, Perl syntax makes zilch sense and gives you horrible habits if you ever want to learn any other language. It's not a good place to start. I love perl, but it's just not a starting language.
Obsolete version problem (Score:2)
As for the language itself, I have lots of criticisms; see comp.lang.c++.moderated [deja.com].
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
It scares me how much stuff might actually be running out there written by people that actually thought they could "Learn C++ in 24 hours". *SHUDDER* "Learning" C++ is a labor of *years*.
Re:If only he had chosen a _real_ language (Score:2)
I know C++ and Perl, and you are wrong about C++. When I first learned associative arrays, it was in Perl (actually it was in awk, which does it almost the same way as Perl, and from which Perl derived those features).
When I first learned C++ (in 1991), C++ was a very different language than it is now. However, as I have learned by reading Bjarne Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language, Special Edition", which is brand new, with the features that have been added to the language since then, and especially the Standard Template Libraries, you can create associative arrays in C++ quite easily. And you can create associative arrays of any kind of C++ object using STL.
I still think Perl would be my first bet for writing a CGI script (the guy you replied to is flamebait to say that Perl isn't good for anything), but judging from the comments in this forum, most of the detractors of C++ don't really know what the language is capable of.
start with assembly (not a joke) (Score:2)
First of all, it teaches you how memory really works. Many people who start off with BASIC or some other learning language have a lot of trouble with things like C pointers. After learning assembly, C makes perfect sense.
It's simpler than you might think. One of the things that catches people in most languages is the way that you have to define the machine you're working on: you make names for everything. In assembly, the names are optional. You have a machine, with registers and addresses, and you can know exactly what it does with those.
The syntax is also simpler. Instead of fiddling with blocks and declarations and definitions, you just have tags and instructions.
You don't jump in and start throwing strings around without understanding what the computer is doing with them, instead you start right at the ground floor, doing simple arithmetic.
It is immensely satisfying to manage even simple arithmetic when you're first starting out in assembly language, and rightly so. To do a simple thing like A=12+B/4-D in assembly requires that you learn to order your instructions in a sensible manner and manage the temporary results.
It is rewarding precisely because it is difficult. Once you've managed to do any simple task, you are drawn back by the challenge. Best of all, after a brief intro, you're ready to jump into Knuth's TAoCP, which lays a solid foundation for any future programming task.
(I wrote a utility for learning assembly language, called easynasm [boswa.com])
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:2)
C is simple and closely tied to most computer architectures. All C language constructs and operators are designed to be directly implementable in only a few instructions on most CPUs. Hence the basic data types. char, int (various sizes), float (various sizes) & pointers. All CPUs pretty much implement them directly, and not a whole lot else.
Anything else is implemented by (standard) library functions.
You want to implement a string type? That's a job for the library, not the core language. (as it is in C++). How to do that in C? Without C++ classes, and the safety they allow you to implement (destructors, copy constructors) how would you do it in C?
C was written to fulfill a specific purpose. And did it well. And to _not_ have a native string type was (IMO) an _intelligent_ decision based on what C was designed to do, and how it was designed to go about doing it.
K.
I reviewed this book pre-print, some years ago... (Score:2)
Re:What's a "steep learning curve" (Score:3)
A subject with a steep learning curve, therefore, is a subject where much learning is involved to do relatively simple tasks.
Jeremy
CS's History (Score:2)
Ok, maybe (Score:2)
Re:Ok, maybe (Score:2)
It's been a small dream of mine to put together a 3-course cycle from computer architecture->compilers->OS and have the students build a complete system from scratch. I think students gain the most insight when they see how all the different pieces they learn about fit together and work in a (maybe) harmonious fashion.
--
Interesting Idea (Score:2)
Re:Oh yeah. (Score:2)
Nobody said that you need to teach Perl, but rather that in the course of teaching the concepts, you use as a testbed for said concepts a language which doesn't obfuscate the concepts.
When a language causes your students to focus more on semantics of a language than on what they're actually accomplishing -- when a student spends more time trying to get the peculiarities of a given language's syntax down, rather than focusing on what they're really *trying* to do, then you've done your students a disservice. Much worse so, in fact, when in the end they've learned the semantics of a language that, while admirable in its structure, is not nearly so marketable as the same concepts taught using another language.
For instance, so long as an individual understands the concept of a linked list and how it can be employed to offer fine-grained control over an array of structures, does it matter that the user implements every array structure as a linked list rather than using a language that provides such basics as a builtin? I'm speaking abstractly here, really, the same argument could be employed for any number of other concepts.
In the end, while computer science may seem a complex science to you and some of your students, there is no reason to treat it as such a complicated subject. Programming, in fact, any act of creation, should above all be something enjoyed, either in the act itself, or after the creation is complete. Treating the subject as something so cut and dry (good_programmer = math + bigO_notation + algorithms + theory;) does a disservice to the occupation.
Finally, I and many others like me I'm sure find it insulting that you suggest that WVU wants only the people capable of writing the best programs. First, as worded, it makes it sound like you forget that your job is to take a person and make them the type of person who can program well. Second, your implication that a programmer who hasn't attended WVU (or any college, perhaps) is somehow *not* capable of writing a program to put your graduates/instructors to shame, is extremely narrow-minded.
There are individuals for whom such things come naturally, and your statements sound more like an advertisement or justification for your university's existence rather than any substantial reason why your program produces better programmers. Years of refinement or not, there is no best way to teach computer science to someone, no more so than there is any one best way to solve a particular programming problem.
Re:You've opened a Pandora's Box (Score:2)
I learned Gofer myself in the first year of university (very similar to haskell). Though it is a very fun language to learn and use, I don't think of it as essential material for programmers. The programming community for functional language is quite small (for various reasons), and unless you are actually going to use it I wouldn't recommend spending much time on it to beginning programmers.
I also think it is a mistake to think that programming is still about algorithms. I can't remember the last time I implemented something like quicksort. All these things are available in a reusable form these days. Although it doesn't hurt to about algorithms, I think things like program structure and design are much more important.
Needless to say that I think that CS students, who are not just code monkeys, should know how to work with other languages than just Java/C++. Haskell is a good choice, but also prolog, lisp, etc. might be sufficient. The idea is not to teach those students a particular language but to learn them different ways of solving problems. It is also a great way to learn to understand the limitations of certain programming languages (C for instance). The more languages, the better. Each language has particular features which are interesting to learn about.
Some real fun... (Score:3)
Then ass a little CORBA. With POA's and dynamic factories...
Then add pluggable protocols for an ATM layer and QoS.
Tasty.. wrap your brain around that one..
LOL
Re:C++ is NOT the best langage to learn on (Score:2)
Er
template
int & bar::operator +(int& ref) {
I disagree (Score:2)
or Step Seven: Get hired elsewhere and repeat (Score:2)
Re:A less horrible introductory language.. (Score:2)
IMHO indentation is more intuitive than {} or whatever. When I read a long text (not necessarily code) there are often paragraphs that are indented for clear distinction from main text. This is how human perception works - large variations are more obvious than single punctuation marks. Imagine Ayer's Rock being separated from the surrounding desert by 12-pt {} only, instead of 'indentation'! 8-)
Don't get this book. (Score:3)
The very first words out of his mouth on the first day of class was "C is dead, so there's no point in learning it." His book included a copy of gcc, but for some reason I can't recall, nobody could get it working and he had to hand out another version on floppies. We had to use HIS book as the textbook, but the student bookstore wouldn't stock it and Barnes&Nobel didn't order enough books, so some of us had to wait several weeks to get it.
He didn't pace himself properly and ran out of material at about halfway through the semester, so he spits out an addendum, which we also have to buy, so he can keep talking. Half the book is filled with conversations of this Susan person and none of it adds anything to the content of the book.
You'll love this one. The day we had our first test, which had errors on it, but thats a different story, he was SO paranoid that someone would try to smuggle out a copy of the test (why I can't completely figure out), that he insisted on searching everyone's backpacks as they left to make sure nobody stole a copy. The fact that we turned in our copy when we left didn't make any difference. He could also have done what other paranoid instructors do that don't want their students cheating (or stealing tests) and just leave our bags at the front of the room. OH but that might make sense or something.
That was the last day I went to that class. I just dropped it after that because I was so sick of it/him. Apparently the real kicker happened at the end of the semester. When it came time to fill out evaluation forms, he naturally got a REALLY bad review, and some stupid idiot in the administration decided to tell him that before he gave out the final exams. So he goes into class telling everyone that he heard about the review and decided to give everyone a REALLY hard final exam as revenge. Most students ended up failing the class or getting low passing grades as a result. The school ended up giving everyone who wanted an option to do a small project to correct the grade in the class.
Don't buy this book. Don't send this guy any money. I don't know if he's changed any over the years, but this book is a piece of trash and it will NOT be money well spent.
-Restil
Re:With all due respect (Score:2)
Hmm...you're wrong one a couple of points.
Register selection is very easy in most cases. Also, I can't think of a machine that has 10 registers,That may be true for x86 and CISC processors but most RISC processors have significantly more than 10 registers. HP's PA-RISC has 31 integer and >10 floating point, the MIPS have 32 integer and 32/16 floating point, the SPARCs, alphas, etc. also have at least 20 integer and 10 floating point registers. Then there are more obscure stuff like the AMD29k which had 128 registers. The IA-64 architecture has more than 50 registers, I believe.
anyway the NP-Complete problems require N! timeNP complete problems are solvable in non-polynomial time hence the NP designation. c^n where c is constant is non-polynomial hence NP problems can have solutions that are O(c^n). NP-complete problems are a subset of NP problems hence there can exist NP-complete problems that take O(c^n) time.
How did I improve it? I used SIMD instructions (MMX). I was able to get a 4x increase in speed. *NO COMPILER COULD EVER DO THIS*.Just because you've never encountered a compiler that can't do this doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
The problem you've given is just an application of vectorizing the algorithm. Several fortran compilers exist that do this. However they were for architectures like the Cray which had SIMD instructions 15 years ago. SIMD is relatively new to the x86 and ppc architectures so naturally compilers for those architectures haven't been able to take advantage of this. Plus vectorizing compilers are hard to make.
Anyway, that's why you're wrongAnd thats where you're wrong. :)
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Java is so close to C++ that they might as well be different dialects of the same language. Java is a bit more "pure" OO while C++ is a bit more "down in the guts", but overall, they would be identical for new programmers.
C++ would make a great first language. First, they need learn only one language, instead of one for beginners, another for intermediate, and finally C++ for advanced. Two, the potentially confusing stuff in C++ can be left for later. They are not required to program. Classes can be introduced after mastering structured programming, and templates, STL and generic programming can be introduced after learning OOP. Third, teaching students to use proper coding styles makes any language easier.
I think this arguing against C++ as a beginners language arises out something other than it's difficulty. No proper programming language can be taught in 24 hours. There may only be 24 hours of lecture time, but this does not count the weeks spent on homework and labwork.
"Practical C++ Programming" is a great book for learning C++, even if one is not a programmer. Coupled with a comprehensive C++ reference, it would make a nice text for a beginning programming class.
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Wonder not do I.
Wrote Lisp Yoda did not.
Yoda Lisp did write!
Yoda character Lisp program generated by!
"No try is there. Only do."
Re:You've opened a Pandora's Box (Score:2)
UCSD Pascal, that old standard of beginning programming before Turbo Pascal hit the scenes, had turtle graphics as a library, and it did wonders for teaching programming (I was a proctor at UCSD). Instant visual feedback is a powerful teacher.
So go write a turtle graphics class for C++ and get teaching!
Exactly! (Score:2)
I was hoping my sarcasm was self-evident, but I forgot this is slashdot. Okay, next time I'll surround my jokes with tags...
I agree (Score:2)
Still, I don't think a language like that (C) is good to learn on, which is what my point was.
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Realistically, if they were so similar, Java wouldn't have had much of a chance of being successful.
Re:C++ is a horrible introductory language (Score:2)
Everyone want's to tout their favourite language (and your advocacy of Pascal is a good example), but in reality, programming languages are not the essence of what you teach to programmers anyway. Heck, most of my comp. sci classes in University would introduce a language to you during the first week, expecting you to be able to use it well enough to cover the material in the course. This was really not a problem, because in the end design techniques don't necessarily require you to excercise esoteric language features (they're mostly there to frustrate developers and compiler designers
Re:Steep learning curves... (Score:2)
--
Re:just little nitpick on NP (Score:2)
Doh! I can't believe I screwed up like that since I've taken a few discrete math and theoretical cs classes.You're right of course. BTW, anyone who proves that P=NP or P!=NP will probably win a Fields medal since Nobels are awarded for mathematics.
Re:A less horrible introductory language.. (Score:2)
Finally, there are tools provided in the standard distribution to autostrip #} and #{ block identifiers (which the Emacs mode recognizes). So think of the block identifiers as optional. The indentation requirement is not onerous to those who accept it, and is actually a plus.
I find Python to be a very elegant solution for many of my needs (GUI, signal processing, and mathematical exploration), and people in the lab can understand much of my code, without EVER having looked at a Python tutorial or reference (all except the GUI stuff