C++ PROGRAMMING

[Corey C. Carter]

I am new to programming. Over the years I have "tried" many langauges such
as basic, pascal(yea yea, I know, out of date), python and C. I was under
the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true,
or can I just begin with C++?

[Ioannis Vranos]

Corey C. Carter wrote:

I am new to programming. Over the years I have "tried" many langauges such
as basic, pascal(yea yea, I know, out of date), python and C. I was under
the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true,
or can I just begin with C++?

No, the best thing is to begin with C++ in the first place. Check this:
http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/learningcpp.htm

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Corey C. Carter wrote:

I am new to programming. Over the years I have "tried" many langauges such as basic, pascal(yea yea, I know, out of date), python and C. I was under
the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true, or can I just begin with C++?

Read /Accelerated C++/. It shows how to treat the C++ Standard Library as a
high-level language. For example, always use std::string, and never deal
with the raw character pointers or arrays that it wraps.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:10:13 -0800 in comp.lang.c++, "Corey C. Carter"
<TR***********@ COX.NET> wrote,

the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true,
or can I just begin with C++?

This issue is covered in Marshall Cline's C++ FAQ. See the topic
"[28.2] Should I learn C before I learn OO/C++?" It is always good to
check the FAQ before posting. You can get the FAQ at:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

See the welcome message posted in comp.lang.c++ under the subject
"Welcome to comp.lang.c++! Read this first." or available at
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt

[Tim Slattery]

"Corey C. Carter" <TR***********@ COX.NET> wrote:

I am new to programming. Over the years I have "tried" many langauges such
as basic, pascal(yea yea, I know, out of date), python and C. I was under
the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true,
or can I just begin with C++?

Not true. You can start with C++.

--
Tim Slattery
Sl********@bls. gov

[Ioannis Vranos]

David Harmon wrote:

This issue is covered in Marshall Cline's C++ FAQ. See the topic
"[28.2] Should I learn C before I learn OO/C++?" It is always good to
check the FAQ before posting. You can get the FAQ at:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

See the welcome message posted in comp.lang.c++ under the subject
"Welcome to comp.lang.c++! Read this first." or available at
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt

The FAQ needs serious fixing in some areas. What is this OO/C++ about?
Check this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fa...ntua.gr&rnum=2

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Andrew McDonagh]

Corey C. Carter wrote:

I am new to programming. Over the years I have "tried" many langauges such
as basic, pascal(yea yea, I know, out of date), python and C. I was under
the impression that one must lean C before moving on to C++. Is that true,
or can I just begin with C++?

C & c++ are different - one does not and for best results should not
learn C before trying C++

Syntactically they are similar, but then so is Java and C++.

C is a procedural language whereas C++ is an Object Oriented language.

Whilst C++ has a lot of backwards compatibility with C, its only to do
with the mechanics of the languages, rather than the design idioms.

If I was new to programming I certainly would NOT learn C before C++. I
would learn any other OO language before C++.

HTH

Andrew

[Victor Bazarov]

Andrew McDonagh wrote:

[...]
C is a procedural language whereas C++ is an Object Oriented language.
That's not true. C++ is not an OOL. To quote the father of the language,
it's "a general purpose programming language with a bias towards systems
programming that
- is a better C,
- supports data abstraction,
- supports object-oriented programming, and
- supports generic programming." (TC++PL SE, chapter 2, sec 2.1)
[..]
If I was new to programming I certainly would NOT learn C before C++. I
would learn any other OO language before C++.

That needs a bit of clarification. Why would you learn another OOL before
C++? Why would you even consider learning any other language (except your
own, spoken one) before C++?

V

[Andrew McDonagh]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Andrew McDonagh wrote:

[...]
C is a procedural language whereas C++ is an Object Oriented language.

That's not true. C++ is not an OOL. To quote the father of the language,
it's "a general purpose programming language with a bias towards systems
programming that
- is a better C,
- supports data abstraction,
- supports object-oriented programming, and
- supports generic programming." (TC++PL SE, chapter 2, sec 2.1)

Whilst that is true to some extent, if we are to gain the most benefits
of C++, IMHO its through its OO-ness.

C++'s backwards compatibility with C was only to aid adoption of the
language. It meant that C programmers could cross train to C++ easier.
The 'father of the language' Stroustrup (book URL below) goes into great
detail of why's and hows of the language is the way it is.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/dne.html

[..]
If I was new to programming I certainly would NOT learn C before C++.
I would learn any other OO language before C++.

That needs a bit of clarification. Why would you learn another OOL before
C++? Why would you even consider learning any other language (except your
own, spoken one) before C++?

V

What I mean, is that if I was too learn any kind of language before
learning C++, then I would learn an OOL rather than a procedural,
functional, etc kind of language.

That said, I personally don't think C++ is the best language to learn at
the same time as learning OO. There are other OOLs that are simpler than
C++, which aid the trainee learn OO skills which can be translated to
any OO language. This is why universities typically (but not
universally) Use Java or Smalltalk when teaching OO.)

[Victor Bazarov]

Andrew McDonagh wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Andrew McDonagh wrote:

[...]
C is a procedural language whereas C++ is an Object Oriented
language.

That's not true. C++ is not an OOL. To quote the father of the
language, it's "a general purpose programming language with a bias
towards systems programming that
- is a better C,
- supports data abstraction,
- supports object-oriented programming, and
- supports generic programming." (TC++PL SE, chapter 2, sec 2.1)

Whilst that is true to some extent,

To "some extent"???
if we are to gain the most
benefits of C++, IMHO its through its OO-ness.
That is unfortunate and quite single-sided view of C++.
C++'s backwards compatibility with C was only to aid adoption of the
language. It meant that C programmers could cross train to C++ easier.

Not only "cross train". Consider millions of lines of code that could
be re-used virtually unchanged.
The 'father of the language' Stroustrup (book URL below) goes into
great detail of why's and hows of the language is the way it is.
I guess the sound of your own voice in your head didn't let you see
that I quoted one of the books you refer to here. Oh well...

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/dne.html

[..]
If I was new to programming I certainly would NOT learn C before
C++. I would learn any other OO language before C++.

That needs a bit of clarification. Why would you learn another OOL
before C++? Why would you even consider learning any other language
(except your own, spoken one) before C++?

V

What I mean, is that if I was too learn any kind of language before
learning C++, then I would learn an OOL rather than a procedural,
functional, etc kind of language.

That said, I personally don't think C++ is the best language to learn
at the same time as learning OO. There are other OOLs that are
simpler than C++, which aid the trainee learn OO skills which can be
translated to any OO language. This is why universities typically
(but not universally) Use Java or Smalltalk when teaching OO.)

I can see now that you're fascinated (and pre-ocupied) with OO-ness of
C++. Too bad. C++ has much more to offer.

BTW, Java is definitely not the best representative of OO languages out
there. Teaching it as an example of an OO language is a mistake, IMO.

V