sakkinen@tukki.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) (06/16/89)
In article <9474@alice.UUCP> bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes: > ... >Should any of this increase your interest to the point where reading a >textbook seems worth the effort here is a selection (in chronological order >more or less): ... >Wiener, Richard S., Pinson, Lewis J.: "An Introduction to Object-Oriented > Programming and C++," Addison-Wesley, 1988. ... Sorry, but I would not recommend this book. My review of it is pending for ACM Computing Reviews. The companion book with the authors in reverse order and 'Smalltalk' instead of 'C++' is apparently better, although it seems to explain such a basic concept as 'super' incorrectly. Markku Sakkinen Department of Computer Science University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts) Seminaarinkatu 15 SF-40100 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again) Finland
roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) (06/19/89)
In article <916@tukki.jyu.fi> markku@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative) writes: > >... >>Wiener, Richard S., Pinson, Lewis J.: "An Introduction to Object-Oriented >> Programming and C++," Addison-Wesley, 1988. >... > >Sorry, but I would not recommend this book. I would. When I started along the C++ track I first started reading Stroustrups book and got confused. Backtracked to Wiener and Pierson and found this easier going. I then returned to Stroustrup. Wiener and Pierson gave (me) lucid answers to what was object-oriented about C++ and that relatively early on in the book. I think a lot of people start on C++ looking for answers to these questions as I did. The reason I got confused (and demotivated) when I started out on Stroustrups book was not because it wasn't well structured or wasn't well written but because it wasn't answering the questions I was asking David Geary points this out also in a previous posting: I was suprised to find that BS does not extol upon the virtues of OOP. C++ seems to be presented more as simply a "better C". BS does show the benefits of OOP using C++, but they are scattered throughout the book, and the idea of OOP is not consolidated. For example, on page 213, we find: Also the level of detail (although correct) is large for a beginner: for example, the very first example, #include <stream.h> main() { cout << "Hello, world\n"; } carries the following explanation annotated with what I think my thoughts were the _first_ time I read it. The line #include <stream.h> instructs the compiler to _include_ the declarations of the standard stream input and output facilities as found in the file stream.h [So we've got the preprocessor include keyword nothing new here...] Without these declarations, the expression cout<<"Hello, world\n" would make no sense. [Huh? Is cout some sort of typedef exported by stream.h? No that can't be. Must be a variable of some sort. But surely you're not _defining_ cout in stream.h? Better read further...] The operator << ("put to"+) [Huh? put to what? Let me put this to you Stroustrup thats a damned left shift] writes its second argument [I don't see any arguments] onto its first [??? how do you write an argument _onto_ another argument?] (in this case, the string "Hello, world\n" onto the standard output stream cout [I'm lost...The guys using a left shift operator to do a printf and I thought C++ could do everything C could do... so whats wrong with printfs? Suddenly out of fashion? And this is the first example, so I guess it must be showing the power of C++. Gee I can use a left shift to do a printf...] Of course, now we all look back and laugh at this train of thought. :-) :-) But it wasn't getting me any nearer to the answer of why C++ was so great. When I went back to bs after reading W&P and knowing the answers to the questions I wanted answering I could concentrate on the language _details_ which bs so well describes and not the language _issues_ to which bs does too little justice. -- Roelof Vuurboom SSP/V3 Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands +31 55 432226 domain: roelof@idca.tds.philips.nl uucp: ...!mcvax!philapd!roelof
jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) (06/19/89)
> Who distributes 'The C++ Report'?
Can anyone give us a review of 'The C++ Report' ??? Maybe the index out of one
issue or something? -- I've asked for a trial copy about four times,
and each time they send me a copy of JOOP instead!
[I already have acces to JOOP.]) Seaman) (06/22/89)
roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes: < markku@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes: < >... < >>Wiener, Richard S., Pinson, Lewis J.: "An Introduction to Object-Oriented < >> Programming and C++," Addison-Wesley, 1988. < >... < >Sorry, but I would not recommend this book. < < I would. When I started along the C++ track I first started reading < Stroustrups book and got confused. Backtracked to Wiener and Pierson < and found this easier going. I then returned to Stroustrup. I *don't* mean to start a war, and while I agree that Stroustrup's book is much too confusing to the C++ novice, I think it only fair to point out that it isn't really intended as a tutorial. As a reference, it is very good (when is the edition covering 2.0 coming out?? :-) ). Since I haven't read Wiener & Pinson, I don't want to sound at all as if I am knocking their book. It may very well be an excellent tutorial. [ Discussion of confusing example 'cout << "Hello world\n";' ... ] [ Quote from BS ] < The operator << ("put to"+) [Huh? put to what? Let me put this to you < Stroustrup thats a damned left shift] writes its second argument < [I don't see any arguments] onto its first [??? how do you write an < argument _onto_ another argument?] ... Actually, referring to the '<<' as a left shift might have served to make the example even MORE confusing :-). I say this because it alludes to the 'C' use of the '<<' operator, which has no bearing on its function here. Once an operator has been overloaded for a class, identifying it by its 'standard' meaning does little or nothing to explain its overloaded usage. < When I went back to bs after reading W&P and knowing the answers to the < questions I wanted answering I could concentrate on the language _details_ < which bs so well describes and not the language _issues_ to which bs does < too little justice. This is probably the best approach to 'self-teaching' C++. < Roelof Vuurboom SSP/V3 Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands By the way, what are peoples' opinions of Stephen Dewhurst & Kathy Stark's new book, 'Programming in C++', from Prentice Hall? I just picked up a copy (at the Usenix conference in Baltimore), and it looks pretty good, so far. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ...!att!cpsc6a!crs | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!
pete@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Peter Farabaugh) (06/22/89)
In article <550@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com> crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (HA!! I *KILL* me!!) Seaman) writes: >roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes: >< markku@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes: >[ Discussion of confusing example 'cout << "Hello world\n";' ... ] > >[ Quote from BS ] >< The operator << ("put to"+) [Huh? put to what? Let me put this to you >< Stroustrup thats a damned left shift] writes its second argument >< [I don't see any arguments] onto its first [??? how do you write an >< argument _onto_ another argument?] ... > >Actually, referring to the '<<' as a left shift might have served to >make the example even MORE confusing :-). I say this because it alludes >to the 'C' use of the '<<' operator, which has no bearing on its function >here. Once an operator has been overloaded for a class, identifying it >by its 'standard' meaning does little or nothing to explain its overloaded >usage. > I think that referring to the << and >> operators as put to and get from is a good idea. Shift left and right is to confusing and less-than-sign- less-than-sign, greater-than-sign-greater-than-sign is stupid. Put to and get from are easy to say, learn , and understand the function of. [oops, ended a sentence with a preposition. awful isn't it?] Does any one have such a name for () and [] function-call-operator and subscripting-operator are plain ugly. Peter Farabaugh ****************************************************************************** "Women, can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em!"--Stephen Wright ****************************************************************************** "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around" -The Police ****************************************************************************** _____________ From the dark recesses of the mind of |____ | __ | | | __| |___| Peter Farabaugh | |_____ | | <- My Mind ..topaz!andromeda!pete |____ |__ | (all this and a drop of Retsen) |___________| NET:..topaz!andromeda!pete USMAIL:519 Prospect St., Nutley, N.J. 07110 MA BELL: 201-667-3784 PLANET: Earth GALAXY: Milky Way ****************************************************************************** "What? Me have opinions? You must have me confused with someone else!" ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** "Women, can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em!"--Stephen Wright ****************************************************************************** "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around" -The Police ****************************************************************************** _____________ From the dark recesses of the mind of |____ | __ | | | __| |___| Peter Farabaugh | |_____ | | <- My Mind ..topaz!andromeda!pete |____ |__ | (all this and a drop of Retsen) |___________| NET:..topaz!andromeda!pete USMAIL:519 Prospect St., Nutley, N.J. 07110 MA BELL: 201-667-3784 PLANET: Earth GALAXY: Milky Way ****************************************************************************** "What? Me have opinions? You must have me confused with someone else!" ******************************************************************************
jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz) (06/26/89)
In article <Jun.21.20.51.33.1989.27612@galaxy.rutgers.edu> pete@andromeda.rutgers.edu.UUCP (Peter Farabaugh) writes: > I think that referring to the << and >> operators as put to and get >from is a good idea. Shift left and right is to confusing and less-than-sign- >less-than-sign, greater-than-sign-greater-than-sign is stupid. For the record, the 2.0 iostream documentation (which I had a part in writing) refers to << and >> as insertion and extraction operators repsectively, and to the variants for a particular type T as the T insertor and T extractor. I find this terminology clear and concise. I hope it catches on. Jerry Schwarz AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
rfg@pink.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (07/03/89)
In article <11700@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz) writes: > >For the record, the 2.0 iostream documentation (which I had a part in >writing) refers to << and >> as insertion and extraction operators... > >I find this terminology clear and concise. I hope it catches on. Right Jerry. I'm going to go insert a letter to my dear mother as soon as I finish extracting the morning paper. :-) -- // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental Systems Kit Project // 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740 // ARPA: rfg@mcc.com // UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg