Learning C from old books ??

Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing else,or
are they just going to be to outdated.
I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
Thanks for you help.

re: Learning C from old books ??

"Jhon smith" writes:
[color=blue]
> Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
> from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
> else,or
> are they just going to be to outdated.
> I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
> brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.[/color]

The copyright date on K&R, 2nd edition, which is pretty much the bible, is
1988. You may just be seeing differences in pedantry.

re: Learning C from old books ??

"Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote[color=blue]
> Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
> from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing[/color]
else,or[color=blue]
> are they just going to be to outdated.
> I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
> brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>[/color]
If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is probably
a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences not to
matter too much.
However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since I was
on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard library
functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of time
wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to set
the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.

When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on C++,
since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.

re: Learning C from old books ??

Malcolm wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote
>[color=green]
>>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
>>learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
>>I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
>>differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
>>others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
>>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing[/color]
>
> else,or
>[color=green]
>>are they just going to be to outdated.
>>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
>>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>>[/color]
>
> If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is probably
> a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences not to
> matter too much.
> However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since I was
> on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard library
> functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of time
> wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to set
> the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
>
> When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
> documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on C++,
> since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
>
>[/color]

You could use that old book to teach you C and then get (for example)
the manual of the GNU C Library [1] as a reference (I think it clearly
denotes functions that are not part of the standard).

Greetings, Chris.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/man...ml_node.tar.gz

--
Christian Staudenmayer
University of Ulm, Germany
cstaud@gmail.com

re: Learning C from old books ??

Malcolm wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote
>[color=green]
>>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
>>learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
>>I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
>>differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
>>others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
>>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing[/color]
>
> else,or
>[color=green]
>>are they just going to be to outdated.
>>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
>>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>>[/color]
>
> If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is probably
> a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences not to
> matter too much.
> However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since I was
> on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard library
> functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of time
> wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to set
> the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
>
> When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
> documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on C++,
> since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
>[/color]

And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
both ISO C / C++ standards ).

--
Karthik.
' Remove _nospamplz from my email to mail me. '

re: Learning C from old books ??

"Karthik Kumar"[color=blue]
> Malcolm wrote:[color=green]
> > "Jhon smith"[color=darkred]
> >>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> >>learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> >>I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> >>differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> >>others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to[/color][/color][/color]
learn[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing[/color]
> >
> > else,or
> >[color=darkred]
> >>are they just going to be to outdated.
> >>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with[/color][/color][/color]
my[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is[/color][/color]
probably[color=blue][color=green]
> > a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences not[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > matter too much.
> > However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since I[/color][/color]
was[color=blue][color=green]
> > on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard[/color][/color]
library[color=blue][color=green]
> > functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of[/color][/color]
time[color=blue][color=green]
> > wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to[/color][/color]
set[color=blue][color=green]
> > the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
> >
> > When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
> > documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on[/color][/color]
C++,[color=blue][color=green]
> > since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
> >[/color]
>
> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]

If you want to avail your self of any type of real help around here, you
need to meet the decision of whether learning c is worth 40 clams to you.
You MUST have K&R if you are to use this forum for self study. MPJ

re: Learning C from old books ??

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:31:36 -0600, Merrill & Michele wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Karthik Kumar"[color=green]
>> Malcolm wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > "Jhon smith"
>> >>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
>> >>learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
>> >>I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
>> >>differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
>> >>others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to[/color][/color]
> learn[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
>> >
>> > else,or
>> >
>> >>are they just going to be to outdated.
>> >>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with[/color][/color]
> my[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is[/color][/color]
> probably[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences not[/color][/color]
> to[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > matter too much.
>> > However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since I[/color][/color]
> was[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard[/color][/color]
> library[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of[/color][/color]
> time[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to[/color][/color]
> set[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
>> >
>> > When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
>> > documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on[/color][/color]
> C++,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
>> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
>> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]
>
> If you want to avail your self of any type of real help around here, you
> need to meet the decision of whether learning c is worth 40 clams to you.
> You MUST have K&R if you are to use this forum for self study. MPJ[/color]

That is just utter nonsense. While K&R is a very respectable piece of
work, it is by no means required for either learning C or participating in
this group. It does not cover all aspects of the langauge, it has not
been updated for C99 (which is the latest official standard whether people
like it or not), and is written with the assumption that the reader
already has programming experience. It is by no means the "end all, be
all" on the subject and there are many people who would be better off
learning C from another angle, especially those who are learning C as
their first language.

Rob Gamble

re: Learning C from old books ??

Quoth Karthik Kumar on or about 2004-11-14:[color=blue]
> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]

I wish to make two important points.

* A C newbie, especially one new to programming in general, will
probably only be confused by the standard.

* The $18 version contains DRM is only readable with Adobe readers[0].
The Standards Australia copy is AUD418.95[1], and presumably doesn't
contain the DRM. I mostly work from a dead-tree photocopy :-)

-trent

[0] This is second-hand knowledge, a colleague purchased it.
[1] That's several hundred in US dollars.

re: Learning C from old books ??

Quoth Jhon smith on or about 2004-11-14:[color=blue]
> Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.[/color]

A beginner will probably not notice any difference between old books and
the current standard. You can always ask here if you do :-)
Try to stay away from pre-ANSI stuff, though.

OT: I strongly recommend you get a UNIX. Learning to program is a lot
harder under Windows. The easiest way to get a UNIX is to ask the
nearest Linux / BSD zealot for help.

-trent

re: Learning C from old books ??

Trent Buck <NOSPAMfubarbaz@bigpond.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> * The $18 version contains DRM is only readable with Adobe readers[0].[/color]

The PDF versions of the C99 and C++98 standards that I obtained
from ANSI both view fine in xpdf and gv. In fact, I don't think
I've ever used them with the Adobe-branded reader.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

re: Learning C from old books ??

Quoth Ben Pfaff on or about 2004-11-14:[color=blue][color=green]
> > * The $18 version contains DRM is only readable with Adobe readers[0].[/color]
>
> The PDF versions of the C99 and C++98 standards that I obtained
> from ANSI both view fine in xpdf and gv. In fact, I don't think
> I've ever used them with the Adobe-branded reader.[/color]

Interesting. When and from which site did you get them?

On 2004-09-17 I was told:
| > That's some markup! URL?
| URL not available, due to it all being dynamic; go to http://www.ansi.org,
| click the Downloads link, create yourself an account (this is free), then
| go back to Downloads and search for 9899. You can then nab yourself a
| softcopy for US$18 if you have an Adobe Reader 6.01-compliant eBook reader.

Later the same day:
| Trent, on the off-chance you've got a credit card, don't bother -- it
| appears to be infested with poxy Windows-reliant DRM such that it will
| only open in Adobe Reader 6.0+. The standard is only a 1.4M download, but
| the reader is 15M. And I'm on dialup. What a pain.

-trent

re: Learning C from old books ??

Karthik Kumar <kaykaylance_nospamplz@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]

Actually, for a complete beginner, the last public draft would serve
almost as well, and it's available for free at
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/>.

Richard

re: Learning C from old books ??

Trent Buck <NOSPAMfubarbaz@bigpond.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Quoth Ben Pfaff on or about 2004-11-14:[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > * The $18 version contains DRM is only readable with Adobe readers[0].[/color]
>>
>> The PDF versions of the C99 and C++98 standards that I obtained
>> from ANSI both view fine in xpdf and gv. In fact, I don't think
>> I've ever used them with the Adobe-branded reader.[/color]
>
> Interesting. When and from which site did you get them?[/color]

webstore.ansi.org, and late 1999 or early 2000 for C99 and around
2001 for C++98. I suppose the situation could have changed since
then.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

re: Learning C from old books ??

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:59:49 GMT
Trent Buck <NOSPAMfubarbaz@bigpond.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Quoth Jhon smith on or about 2004-11-14:[color=green]
> > Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems
> > trying to learn C from older books,I have some from the late
> > 80`s,mid/late 90`s.[/color]
>
> A beginner will probably not notice any difference between old books
> and the current standard. You can always ask here if you do :-)
> Try to stay away from pre-ANSI stuff, though.[/color]

Mid-80's books are likely to be pre-ANSI since the ANSI standard came
out in 89

You can generally recognise pre-ANSI stuff by the way functions are
defined.

The pre-ANSI form looks something like
foo(bar,bob)
int *bar;
{
}

The ANSI/ISO equivalent is
int foo(int *bar, int bob)
{
return 0;
}

As you (the OP) can see, the ANSI/ISO version has the variable types
inside the parenthesis. There are other differences as well.
[color=blue]
> OT: I strongly recommend you get a UNIX. Learning to program is a lot
> harder under Windows. The easiest way to get a UNIX is to ask the
> nearest Linux / BSD zealot for help.[/color]

OT Still: an easier way for a Windows person IMHO, especially one
without a spare machine, is Cygwin from http://www.cygwin.com/ although
you have to make sure you select the development stuff for installation.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

re: Learning C from old books ??

Thanks to all for your help.


"Flash Gordon" <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:00am62x4q7.ln2@brenda.flash-gordon.me.uk...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:59:49 GMT
> Trent Buck <NOSPAMfubarbaz@bigpond.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Quoth Jhon smith on or about 2004-11-14:[color=darkred]
>> > Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems
>> > trying to learn C from older books,I have some from the late
>> > 80`s,mid/late 90`s.[/color]
>>
>> A beginner will probably not notice any difference between old books
>> and the current standard. You can always ask here if you do :-)
>> Try to stay away from pre-ANSI stuff, though.[/color]
>
> Mid-80's books are likely to be pre-ANSI since the ANSI standard came
> out in 89
>
> You can generally recognise pre-ANSI stuff by the way functions are
> defined.
>
> The pre-ANSI form looks something like
> foo(bar,bob)
> int *bar;
> {
> }
>
> The ANSI/ISO equivalent is
> int foo(int *bar, int bob)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> As you (the OP) can see, the ANSI/ISO version has the variable types
> inside the parenthesis. There are other differences as well.
>[color=green]
>> OT: I strongly recommend you get a UNIX. Learning to program is a lot
>> harder under Windows. The easiest way to get a UNIX is to ask the
>> nearest Linux / BSD zealot for help.[/color]
>
> OT Still: an easier way for a Windows person IMHO, especially one
> without a spare machine, is Cygwin from http://www.cygwin.com/ although
> you have to make sure you select the development stuff for installation.
> --
> Flash Gordon
> Living in interesting times.
> Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.[/color]

re: Learning C from old books ??

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:11:49 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
[color=blue]
> Trent Buck <NOSPAMfubarbaz@bigpond.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Quoth Ben Pfaff on or about 2004-11-14:[color=darkred]
>>> > * The $18 version contains DRM is only readable with Adobe readers[0].
>>>
>>> The PDF versions of the C99 and C++98 standards that I obtained
>>> from ANSI both view fine in xpdf and gv. In fact, I don't think
>>> I've ever used them with the Adobe-branded reader.[/color]
>>
>> Interesting. When and from which site did you get them?[/color]
>
> webstore.ansi.org, and late 1999 or early 2000 for C99 and around
> 2001 for C++98. I suppose the situation could have changed since
> then.[/color]

My C99 standard purchased from the same place in Jan 2004 works fine with
gv (3.5.8), xpdf (3.00), and Acrobat Reader for Linux (5.08-202) including
bookmarks with the latter two.

Rob Gamble

re: Learning C from old books ??

"Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...[color=blue]
> Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
> from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing else,or
> are they just going to be to outdated.
> I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
> brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
> Thanks for you help.[/color]


There is no need to get the standard. You need a book to help you
out. If you have some prograimming K&Rs book (any ANSI C edition) is
fine.

If you want your hand held a little more, get a copy of "C:How to
Program" by Dietel and Dietel.

re: Learning C from old books ??

Robert Gamble wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:31:36 -0600, Merrill & Michele wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Karthik Kumar"[color=darkred]
>>> Malcolm wrote:
>>> > "Jhon smith"
>>> >>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying
>>> >>to learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late
>>> >>90`s. I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed
>>> >>small differnces in the books such as,int
>>> >>main(),main(void),fprintf,and others,just wondering if these older
>>> >>books are still worth trying to[/color]
>> learn[color=darkred]
>>> >>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
>>> >
>>> > else,or
>>> >
>>> >>are they just going to be to outdated.
>>> >>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or
>>> >>with[/color]
>> my[color=darkred]
>>> >>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is[/color]
>> probably[color=darkred]
>>> > a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences
>>> > not[/color]
>> to[color=darkred]
>>> > matter too much.
>>> > However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since
>>> > I[/color]
>> was[color=darkred]
>>> > on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard[/color]
>> library[color=darkred]
>>> > functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of[/color]
>> time[color=darkred]
>>> > wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to[/color]
>> set[color=darkred]
>>> > the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
>>> >
>>> > When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
>>> > documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on[/color]
>> C++,[color=darkred]
>>> > since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
>>> >
>>>
>>> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
>>> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
>>> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]
>>
>> If you want to avail your self of any type of real help around here, you
>> need to meet the decision of whether learning c is worth 40 clams to you.
>> You MUST have K&R if you are to use this forum for self study. MPJ[/color]
>
> That is just utter nonsense. While K&R is a very respectable piece of
> work, it is by no means required for either learning C or participating in
> this group. It does not cover all aspects of the langauge, it has not
> been updated for C99 (which is the latest official standard whether people
> like it or not), and is written with the assumption that the reader
> already has programming experience. It is by no means the "end all, be
> all" on the subject and there are many people who would be better off
> learning C from another angle, especially those who are learning C as
> their first language.
>
> Rob Gamble[/color]


Well, I've been studying C for a while and K&R is my first book, it's nice
to learn from, and it's a very good book, with challenging exercises :) I
think its a perfect first book.
--
/*
theHypz
*/

re: Learning C from old books ??

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:52:30 +0100, hypz wrote:
[color=blue]
> Robert Gamble wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:31:36 -0600, Merrill & Michele wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Karthik Kumar"
>>>> Malcolm wrote:
>>>> > "Jhon smith"
>>>> >>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying
>>>> >>to learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late
>>>> >>90`s. I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed
>>>> >>small differnces in the books such as,int
>>>> >>main(),main(void),fprintf,and others,just wondering if these older
>>>> >>books are still worth trying to
>>> learn
>>>> >>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
>>>> >
>>>> > else,or
>>>> >
>>>> >>are they just going to be to outdated.
>>>> >>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or
>>>> >>with
>>> my
>>>> >>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > If you are on a tight budget then using an old second hand book is
>>> probably
>>>> > a reasonable economy. The language is stable enough for differences
>>>> > not
>>> to
>>>> > matter too much.
>>>> > However the first book I learnt C from (also bought second hand, since
>>>> > I
>>> was
>>>> > on a tight budget at the time) made no distinction between standard
>>> library
>>>> > functions and compiler extensions. Because of this I wasted a lot of
>>> time
>>>> > wondering where the fgetint() function was to go with fgetc(), how to
>>> set
>>>> > the printf() cursor on the screen and suchlike things.
>>>> >
>>>> > When your lottery money does come through, try to get up to date
>>>> > documentation however. This is particularly the case if you start on
>>> C++,
>>>> > since the current language looks nothing like it did ten years ago.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
>>>> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
>>>> both ISO C / C++ standards ).
>>>
>>> If you want to avail your self of any type of real help around here, you
>>> need to meet the decision of whether learning c is worth 40 clams to you.
>>> You MUST have K&R if you are to use this forum for self study. MPJ[/color]
>>
>> That is just utter nonsense. While K&R is a very respectable piece of
>> work, it is by no means required for either learning C or participating in
>> this group. It does not cover all aspects of the langauge, it has not
>> been updated for C99 (which is the latest official standard whether people
>> like it or not), and is written with the assumption that the reader
>> already has programming experience. It is by no means the "end all, be
>> all" on the subject and there are many people who would be better off
>> learning C from another angle, especially those who are learning C as
>> their first language.
>>
>> Rob Gamble[/color]
>
>
> Well, I've been studying C for a while and K&R is my first book, it's nice
> to learn from, and it's a very good book, with challenging exercises :) I
> think its a perfect first book.[/color]

It certainly is a very good book and I am glad you have found it useful.
My point is that it is not for everyone in that it assumes prior
programming experience (as the authors state in the preface) and that,
more importantly, it is certainly not required to learn C or converse
about the language as the parent poster suggested.

Rob Gamble

re: Learning C from old books ??

In article <L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
Jhon smith <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
>learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.[/color]

Late '80s probably won't be as helpful as they could be; the standard
defining the language that whatever compiler you're using is likely
to implement was published in 1989, so books before that are probably
working with a language that isn't quite the same as the language you're
trying to learn.

With books from mid/late '90s you shouldn't run into any language
problems, but be aware that there are a lot of bad books out there.
If you can get a good textbook from mid-'90s on, it will probably be
perfectly usable. If you're not sure it's good, go ahead and use it
anyways, but be aware that it might not be perfectly reliable - a good
indicator is to see how often you get corrected in comp.lang.c after
stating things you learned from the book.

[color=blue]
>I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
>differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
>others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
>from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing else,or
>are they just going to be to outdated.[/color]

They're probably still worth trying to learn from. If you can get your
hands on a copy of K&R2, it's both a good textbook and a useful sanity
check for other ones.

A lot of the differences between books, especially the more recent
ones, will just be style differences; some will reflect the author's
misunderstanding (or just can't-be-bothered-to-learn) of the language;
and some will reflect an "all the world's a <something>" attitude.
Following what we talk about here is a good way to work out which
is which.

[color=blue]
>I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
>brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.[/color]

When the lottery money comes in, look for books with "Kernighan" or
"Plauger" in the author list. Kernighan (the K in K&R) was involved
with a lot of the early development of the language, and Plauger has
written a major implementation of the standard library (as well as a
book about it). Add "Stroustrup" to the list if you're looking for C++
books; he was the primary designer of C++.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Perhaps the original version of the program worked.
OK, this takes us *way* off topic for any computer related newsgroup, but
you've got to admit its a theoretical possibility. --Ken Hagan in comp.arch

re: Learning C from old books ??

In <2vpu24F2o6ermU1@uni-berlin.de> "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
[color=blue]
>The copyright date on K&R, 2nd edition, which is pretty much the bible, is
>1988. You may just be seeing differences in pedantry.[/color]

You may want to avoid its first printing, however.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

re: Learning C from old books ??

In <keWdnZx0QoDniAXcRVn-tg@comcast.com> "Merrill & Michele" <beckjensen@comcast.net> writes:
[color=blue]
>You MUST have K&R if you are to use this forum for self study. MPJ[/color]

Nope, you don't, but it helps a lot if you do. It's much easier to say
that you have a problem understanding the code example at page X than to
actually reproduce the code in question. Most regulars have a copy of
K&R2 handy and they can simply read the code from it. And, of course,
it's better than most other tutorials.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

re: Learning C from old books ??

In <4198640b.326514844@news.individual.net> rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
[color=blue]
>Karthik Kumar <kaykaylance_nospamplz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> And yeah - try to get the ANSI standard pdf from the ISO web site
>> then. That would be definitely helpful. It costs $18 ( the same for
>> both ISO C / C++ standards ).[/color]
>
>Actually, for a complete beginner, the last public draft would serve
>almost as well, and it's available for free at
><http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/>.[/color]

They're both perfectly useless for a complete beginner, because they have
not been designed as tutorial documents.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

re: Learning C from old books ??

"Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:cnb8un$7h8$4@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...[color=blue]
> In article <L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
> Jhon smith <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> >learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.[/color]
>
> Late '80s probably won't be as helpful as they could be; the standard
> defining the language that whatever compiler you're using is likely
> to implement was published in 1989, so books before that are probably
> working with a language that isn't quite the same as the language you're
> trying to learn.
>
> With books from mid/late '90s you shouldn't run into any language
> problems, but be aware that there are a lot of bad books out there.
> If you can get a good textbook from mid-'90s on, it will probably be
> perfectly usable. If you're not sure it's good, go ahead and use it
> anyways, but be aware that it might not be perfectly reliable - a good
> indicator is to see how often you get corrected in comp.lang.c after
> stating things you learned from the book.
>
>[color=green]
> >I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> >differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> >others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to[/color][/color]
learn[color=blue][color=green]
> >from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing[/color][/color]
else,or[color=blue][color=green]
> >are they just going to be to outdated.[/color]
>
> They're probably still worth trying to learn from. If you can get your
> hands on a copy of K&R2, it's both a good textbook and a useful sanity
> check for other ones.
>
> A lot of the differences between books, especially the more recent
> ones, will just be style differences; some will reflect the author's
> misunderstanding (or just can't-be-bothered-to-learn) of the language;
> and some will reflect an "all the world's a <something>" attitude.
> Following what we talk about here is a good way to work out which
> is which.
>
>[color=green]
> >I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with[/color][/color]
my[color=blue][color=green]
> >brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.[/color]
>
> When the lottery money comes in, look for books with "Kernighan" or
> "Plauger" in the author list. Kernighan (the K in K&R) was involved
> with a lot of the early development of the language, and Plauger has
> written a major implementation of the standard library (as well as a
> book about it). Add "Stroustrup" to the list if you're looking for C++
> books; he was the primary designer of C++.
>
>
> dave
>
> --
> Dave Vandervies[/color]
dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca[color=blue]
> Perhaps the original version of the program worked.
> OK, this takes us *way* off topic for any computer related newsgroup, but
> you've got to admit its a theoretical possibility. --Ken Hagan in[/color]
comp.arch

Holy crap! You're still talking about this? Is there still anyone who
thinks K&R is unnecessary for self study in this forum. Let him say i, so
that I--using the pigeonholing principle--can become something other than
the stupidest guy around here. MPJ

re: Learning C from old books ??

In article <0tOdnZNkj4Eg1AfcRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
Merrill & Michele <beckjensen@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Holy crap! You're still talking about this? Is there still anyone who
>thinks K&R is unnecessary for self study in this forum. Let him say i, so
>that I--using the pigeonholing principle--can become something other than
>the stupidest guy around here. MPJ[/color]

K&R, while a rather good text (one of the best), is hardly necessary
for self study; any other good textbook will be perfectly adequate as
a replacement, and even a mediocre textbook, with appropriate guidance
from sources outside the textbook, is sufficient.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Not that it really matters; anyone I caught writing code like this
would never live to compile it.
--Keith Thompson in comp.lang.c

re: Learning C from old books ??

dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote in message news:<cndprb$u3l$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>...[color=blue]
> In article <0tOdnZNkj4Eg1AfcRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
> Merrill & Michele <beckjensen@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Holy crap! You're still talking about this? Is there still anyone who
> >thinks K&R is unnecessary for self study in this forum. Let him say i, so
> >that I--using the pigeonholing principle--can become something other than
> >the stupidest guy around here. MPJ[/color]
>
> K&R, while a rather good text (one of the best), is hardly necessary
> for self study; any other good textbook will be perfectly adequate as
> a replacement, and even a mediocre textbook, with appropriate guidance
> from sources outside the textbook, is sufficient.
>
>
> dave[/color]


While that is true and there are many other good and adequate books
available, make it easy...just find and read an ANSI C version of K&R

re: Learning C from old books ??

HI all again,I just thought I give you a list of the books I have for you to
say yay or nay to as far as good learning tools.

I don`t know if it`s relevent,but I have a little machine code and assembler
experence from the old c64 days,I never really used basic,and have no real
experence of other languages,I don`t like being kept to far removed from the
machine,thats what i liked about the old MC/assem all those bit/byte opps.

I have looked at things like Pure basic,as as a start in PC programming,but
I like somthing about C,I hate the idea of great big fat programs,when it`s
not needed,however I am finding it a daunting task,as If I look on the net I
see reference to things,libarys,headers,API`s and many other things,Yet no
firm explanation of what is C,and what is purley added buy others,What is
needed to learn and what is at least for the time being,not nessesary.

With the `Basics` it seems much more defined,Learn the basic your
using,learn windows/hardware your using it on,Just with C I know where to
start,I just don`t know Which direction to go and howfar in that direction
to go.

My goal really is to learn C,then if Im upto it,more about using C on the PC
with MS windows(ie windows,graphics,sound),If I ever get that far,and
possibly C++.

The other BIG problem is that I am pretty damn thick,but I really would be
happy if all I can learn to do is simple apps,such a Phone book,with
input/output,disk loading/saving,sorting and such,But I don`t want to have a
basic language do it for me with a few commands,where`s the fun and thinking
in that!.

Any way enough ranting,Here`s my books.

C The complete reference---Herbert schildt first edition,1987
Simple C,Ian sinclair ---1988
Absolute beginners Guide to C,Greg Perry,second edition---1994
C++ Primer plus,Stephan prata,second edition---1995
Learning to program in C,N kantaris---Reprinted 1997
C/C++ Programmers bible Kris jamsa,Lars klander,first edition,---1998

Thanks again.

"Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...[color=blue]
> Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to learn
> from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
> else,or
> are they just going to be to outdated.
> I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with my
> brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
> Thanks for you help.
>
>[/color]

re: Learning C from old books ??

Jhon smith wrote:[color=blue]
> HI all again,I just thought I give you a list of the books I have for you to
> say yay or nay to as far as good learning tools.
>[/color]
[snip][color=blue]
>
> C The complete reference---Herbert schildt first edition,1987[/color]

Do not use this. H.Schildt is, even though his books sell, a
source of misinformation. Even if you had the newest "C unpacked"
or whatever by him, I would give the same advice.
[color=blue]
> Simple C,Ian sinclair ---1988[/color]

Pre-C89. I would not use it.

[color=blue]
> Absolute beginners Guide to C,Greg Perry,second edition---1994
> C++ Primer plus,Stephan prata,second edition---1995
> Learning to program in C,N kantaris---Reprinted 1997
> C/C++ Programmers bible Kris jamsa,Lars klander,first edition,---1998[/color]

Have never seen any of them. Get decided whether you want
to learn C and then maybe C++ or whether C++ is what you are
heading for. Books for both languages at once sound a little
bit suspicious to me.

-Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is a gmx dot de address.

re: Learning C from old books ??

Wow c64, those are the magic words Jhon. I still fire up my old c64 box now
and then, like visiting an old friend. My copy of "Mapping the Commodore
64" still sits undisturbed next to Art Margolis' Troubleshooting & Repairing
your C64 with lots of bookmarks sticking out the top. Ah, those were the
days, when machine language was the only viable design option. This stuff
is ancient, but then so am I. Remember the punch card days and vacuum tube,
block-long monsters with 16K of iron core memory? My "Univac Programmer
Reference" is still on my bookshelf too. Yes kiddies, once upon a time,
computers used plugboard technology; New York City was chock-full of
plugboard machines that were programmed with patch cords - now there's a
challenge. No, I did not know Babbage. Learn from old books? Of course,
the older the better. Buy an old computer at a yard sale. Take it apart.
Observe closely the chips, and learn what function each chip plays in
relation to machine instructions - how each instruction opens and closes
gates allowing the information to flow around the motherboard and report
back a single yes-no, on-off impulse to the processor. Programming becomes
clearer when the mind sees the mechanical actions resulting from the
progression of individual instructions grouped into routines. It matters
little what brand the computer is or was - the principal is the same. To
lean from old books is to build a solid base, like learning Greek before
attending Medical school, and Latin as law prerequisite.

As to learning the C language, remember C and C++ are not the same. C is as
close to bare metal as any compiler language will take you. C++ begins the
assent into the contrived world of objects, leading ultimately to
Microsoft's Visual tangle of confusion - computer verbigeration to tie the
public to one manufacturer's piss poor products. (I am speaking of .NET not
the W95 core.) I suggest you download LCC, a free C only compiler. Print
out all the manuals - several hundred pages, but well worth the ink if you
intend to learn C from the ground up. English is not the author's first
language, but he has a clear vision of what C is and how to use it, that
this language barrier is quickly overcome.

--Good luck Jhon, and good learning.
bigjet@access4less.net




"Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ef3nd.68$9n3.66@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...[color=blue]
> HI all again,I just thought I give you a list of the books I have for you[/color]
to[color=blue]
> say yay or nay to as far as good learning tools.
>
> I don`t know if it`s relevent,but I have a little machine code and[/color]
assembler[color=blue]
> experence from the old c64 days,I never really used basic,and have no real
> experence of other languages,I don`t like being kept to far removed from[/color]
the[color=blue]
> machine,thats what i liked about the old MC/assem all those bit/byte opps.
>
> I have looked at things like Pure basic,as as a start in PC[/color]
programming,but[color=blue]
> I like somthing about C,I hate the idea of great big fat programs,when[/color]
it`s[color=blue]
> not needed,however I am finding it a daunting task,as If I look on the net[/color]
I[color=blue]
> see reference to things,libarys,headers,API`s and many other things,Yet no
> firm explanation of what is C,and what is purley added buy others,What is
> needed to learn and what is at least for the time being,not nessesary.
>
> With the `Basics` it seems much more defined,Learn the basic your
> using,learn windows/hardware your using it on,Just with C I know where to
> start,I just don`t know Which direction to go and howfar in that[/color]
direction[color=blue]
> to go.
>
> My goal really is to learn C,then if Im upto it,more about using C on the[/color]
PC[color=blue]
> with MS windows(ie windows,graphics,sound),If I ever get that far,and
> possibly C++.
>
> The other BIG problem is that I am pretty damn thick,but I really would be
> happy if all I can learn to do is simple apps,such a Phone book,with
> input/output,disk loading/saving,sorting and such,But I don`t want to have[/color]
a[color=blue]
> basic language do it for me with a few commands,where`s the fun and[/color]
thinking[color=blue]
> in that!.
>
> Any way enough ranting,Here`s my books.
>
> C The complete reference---Herbert schildt first edition,1987
> Simple C,Ian sinclair ---1988
> Absolute beginners Guide to C,Greg Perry,second edition---1994
> C++ Primer plus,Stephan prata,second edition---1995
> Learning to program in C,N kantaris---Reprinted 1997
> C/C++ Programmers bible Kris jamsa,Lars klander,first edition,---1998
>
> Thanks again.
>
> "Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...[color=green]
> > Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying to
> > learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
> > I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
> > differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
> > others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to[/color][/color]
learn[color=blue][color=green]
> > from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
> > else,or
> > are they just going to be to outdated.
> > I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with[/color][/color]
my[color=blue][color=green]
> > brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
> > Thanks for you help.
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Learning C from old books ??

LCC downloaded,Printer hidding inthe corner.



"BigJet" <bigjet@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:Sktnd.687$Vy.407@trndny06...[color=blue]
> Wow c64, those are the magic words Jhon. I still fire up my old c64 box
> now
> and then, like visiting an old friend. My copy of "Mapping the Commodore
> 64" still sits undisturbed next to Art Margolis' Troubleshooting &
> Repairing
> your C64 with lots of bookmarks sticking out the top. Ah, those were the
> days, when machine language was the only viable design option. This stuff
> is ancient, but then so am I. Remember the punch card days and vacuum
> tube,
> block-long monsters with 16K of iron core memory? My "Univac Programmer
> Reference" is still on my bookshelf too. Yes kiddies, once upon a time,
> computers used plugboard technology; New York City was chock-full of
> plugboard machines that were programmed with patch cords - now there's a
> challenge. No, I did not know Babbage. Learn from old books? Of course,
> the older the better. Buy an old computer at a yard sale. Take it apart.
> Observe closely the chips, and learn what function each chip plays in
> relation to machine instructions - how each instruction opens and closes
> gates allowing the information to flow around the motherboard and report
> back a single yes-no, on-off impulse to the processor. Programming
> becomes
> clearer when the mind sees the mechanical actions resulting from the
> progression of individual instructions grouped into routines. It matters
> little what brand the computer is or was - the principal is the same. To
> lean from old books is to build a solid base, like learning Greek before
> attending Medical school, and Latin as law prerequisite.
>
> As to learning the C language, remember C and C++ are not the same. C is
> as
> close to bare metal as any compiler language will take you. C++ begins the
> assent into the contrived world of objects, leading ultimately to
> Microsoft's Visual tangle of confusion - computer verbigeration to tie the
> public to one manufacturer's piss poor products. (I am speaking of .NET
> not
> the W95 core.) I suggest you download LCC, a free C only compiler. Print
> out all the manuals - several hundred pages, but well worth the ink if you
> intend to learn C from the ground up. English is not the author's first
> language, but he has a clear vision of what C is and how to use it, that
> this language barrier is quickly overcome.
>
> --Good luck Jhon, and good learning.
> bigjet@access4less.net
>
>
>
>
> "Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ef3nd.68$9n3.66@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...[color=green]
>> HI all again,I just thought I give you a list of the books I have for you[/color]
> to[color=green]
>> say yay or nay to as far as good learning tools.
>>
>> I don`t know if it`s relevent,but I have a little machine code and[/color]
> assembler[color=green]
>> experence from the old c64 days,I never really used basic,and have no
>> real
>> experence of other languages,I don`t like being kept to far removed from[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> machine,thats what i liked about the old MC/assem all those bit/byte
>> opps.
>>
>> I have looked at things like Pure basic,as as a start in PC[/color]
> programming,but[color=green]
>> I like somthing about C,I hate the idea of great big fat programs,when[/color]
> it`s[color=green]
>> not needed,however I am finding it a daunting task,as If I look on the
>> net[/color]
> I[color=green]
>> see reference to things,libarys,headers,API`s and many other things,Yet
>> no
>> firm explanation of what is C,and what is purley added buy others,What is
>> needed to learn and what is at least for the time being,not nessesary.
>>
>> With the `Basics` it seems much more defined,Learn the basic your
>> using,learn windows/hardware your using it on,Just with C I know where to
>> start,I just don`t know Which direction to go and howfar in that[/color]
> direction[color=green]
>> to go.
>>
>> My goal really is to learn C,then if Im upto it,more about using C on the[/color]
> PC[color=green]
>> with MS windows(ie windows,graphics,sound),If I ever get that far,and
>> possibly C++.
>>
>> The other BIG problem is that I am pretty damn thick,but I really would
>> be
>> happy if all I can learn to do is simple apps,such a Phone book,with
>> input/output,disk loading/saving,sorting and such,But I don`t want to
>> have[/color]
> a[color=green]
>> basic language do it for me with a few commands,where`s the fun and[/color]
> thinking[color=green]
>> in that!.
>>
>> Any way enough ranting,Here`s my books.
>>
>> C The complete reference---Herbert schildt first edition,1987
>> Simple C,Ian sinclair ---1988
>> Absolute beginners Guide to C,Greg Perry,second edition---1994
>> C++ Primer plus,Stephan prata,second edition---1995
>> Learning to program in C,N kantaris---Reprinted 1997
>> C/C++ Programmers bible Kris jamsa,Lars klander,first edition,---1998
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> "Jhon smith" <jhonsmith122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:L1Pld.819$586.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...[color=darkred]
>> > Hi,all,I was just wondering if I am likly to have any problems trying
>> > to
>> > learn C from older books,I have some from the late 80`s,mid/late 90`s.
>> > I am using Dev-C++ on the pc windows platform,But I have noticed small
>> > differnces in the books such as,int main(),main(void),fprintf,and
>> > others,just wondering if these older books are still worth trying to[/color][/color]
> learn[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > from as Im on a very tight budget and can`t really afford any thing
>> > else,or
>> > are they just going to be to outdated.
>> > I would ultimately like to learn C then ,maybe C++,then windows,or with[/color][/color]
> my[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > brain it might be easier Win the lotto!.
>> > Thanks for you help.
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]