473,889 Members | 1,431 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

"Mastering C Pointers"....

Hey guys, I'm new here, just a simple question.

I'm learning to Program in C, and I was recommended a book called,
"Mastering C Pointers", just asking if any of you have read it,
and if it's worth the $25USD.

I'm just looking for a book on Pointers, because from what I've
read it's one of the toughest topics to understand.

thanks in advanced.

sincerely ... Andy
Nov 13 '05
388 21994
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:08:24 GMT
"Roose" <no****@nospam. nospam> wrote:
Yes, I'd be quite curious to think what might happen... : ) Are they
going to come over my house and bother me about standard C?
No, but if they recognise you in an interview for a job your posts here
would be held against you. Equally some of mine where I have made
mistakes could be held against me, but I would like to think that I've
not posted anything as bad as some of your advice.
The world
of C is quite large, and I work in commercial software development,
and it is doubtful that many here do. Their tendencies seem to skew
them toward rejecting that world.


Based on a number of things the regulars have posted I can say with
confidence that they have spent a lot of time working on commercial
software. Personally I have 15 years experience working on software in
the defence industry (only 5 of that in C) and about 3.4 years writing
commercial software which is business critical for some large companies
in the UK.

I've also represented both QA and the SW Development manager
at reviews of other peoples work when I worked in the defence industry,
so I know what will be rejected from experience of being the person to
do the rejecting. I've yet to see evidence that SW written by you would
be considered acceptable.

<snip>
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
Nov 13 '05 #191
Alan Connor wrote:
In all seriousness, I just don't trust the Richard fellow at this point,
in spite of his obvious expertise.


Please point out the aspect of C on which you think I have sought to mislead
people.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 13 '05 #192
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> scribbled the following:
Alan Connor wrote:
In all seriousness, I just don't trust the Richard fellow at this point,
in spite of his obvious expertise.
Please point out the aspect of C on which you think I have sought to mislead
people.


You're playing childish word games again, Richard. (Did I do this
right?)

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"My absolute aspect is probably..."
- Mato Valtonen
Nov 13 '05 #193
Joona I Palaste wrote:
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> scribbled the
following:
Alan Connor wrote:
In all seriousness, I just don't trust the Richard fellow at this point,
in spite of his obvious expertise.

Please point out the aspect of C on which you think I have sought to
mislead people.


You're playing childish word games again, Richard. (Did I do this
right?)


You have correctly misinterpreted a perfectly ordinary and unexceptional
statement as a childish word game. Yes, I think you've more or less got the
right idea.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 13 '05 #194
In article <XF************ *****@newsread4 .news.pas.earth link.net>,
zz****@xxx.yyy says...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 01:50:04 -0600, Randy Howard <ra**********@F OOmegapathdslBA R.net> wrote:


In article <bo**********@h ercules.btinter net.com>,
do******@addres s.co.uk.invalid says...
Alan Connor wrote:

<snip>

> We'll see. But trolling gets anyone killfiled for a while. I don't care
> if it's being done by Dennis Ritchie.

Ah, the irony! The exquisite irony!


*cackle*


Great. I get killfiled (oh no!) for laughing at the obvious joke RJH was
referring to, with respect to Ritchie and topicality.

So be it.

--
Randy Howard _o
2reply remove FOOBAR \<,
_______________ _______()/ ()_____________ _______________ _______________ ___
SCO Spam-magnet: po********@sco. com
Nov 13 '05 #195
Randy Howard <ra**********@f oomegapathdslba r.net> scribbled the following:
In article <XF************ *****@newsread4 .news.pas.earth link.net>,
zz****@xxx.yyy says...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 01:50:04 -0600, Randy Howard <ra**********@F OOmegapathdslBA R.net> wrote:
> In article <bo**********@h ercules.btinter net.com>,
> do******@addres s.co.uk.invalid says...
>> Alan Connor wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > We'll see. But trolling gets anyone killfiled for a while. I don't care
>> > if it's being done by Dennis Ritchie.
>>
>> Ah, the irony! The exquisite irony!
>
> *cackle*
Great. I get killfiled (oh no!) for laughing at the obvious joke RJH was
referring to, with respect to Ritchie and topicality. So be it.


You mean the time RJH told Dennis Ritchie he (DMR, not RJH) was off
topic? Yes, that really happened.
Reply written primarily to let Roose and/or Connor know what the irony
was. With any luck at least one of them has not killfiled me yet.
(Although I've killfiled both.)

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
- George Bush
Nov 13 '05 #196
In article <sW************ ****@newssvr29. news.prodigy.co m>,
no****@nospam.n ospam says...
The world of C is quite large,
Yet you seem to have an extremely narrow view of it. Quite
a contradiction.
and I work in commercial software development
So do a large number people, with widely varying degrees of success.
and it is doubtful that many here do.
You really are delusional if you think that is the case.
Their tendencies seem to skew them toward rejecting that world.


How so?

Consider that it is extremely difficult to develop large scale
programs that remain entirely within the ISO C sandbox. That is
true in general. Exceptions probably exist. That isn't the point.

Accepting that to be the case, it is still possible to construct
such programs in a fashion where the bulk of the code is portable
and isolate that platform- and compiler-dependent portions into
separate modules and mark them clearly as such.

I have certainly found this to be a very useful tactic on large
development efforts. It isn't particularly difficult, it allows
for other portable modules to be re-used without having to
"factor out" the platform-specific garbage and porting times can
be extremely short, in some cases hours or even minutes.

This group is basically focused on how to best develop code that
fits the ~95% portion of such programs that are inherently portable
and minimizing the amount of code which needs to be handled in a
non-standard way (and which is discussed elsewhere, where it is
more appropriate).

As a concrete example, I have developed and actively maintain a
particular suite of software tools and applications that must
execute properly on Win/95, Win/98, Win/ME, NT4, W2K, Win/XP (all
32-bit), Win64 (AMD and Itanium), RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux,
Mandrake, etc. of various releases back several years on 32-bit and
64-bit hardware platforms, along with several different proprietary
UNIX platforms as well as Novell NetWare 5.1, 6.0 and 6.5.

That is done with a code base that is 95% or more straight ISO C
with a few platform specific modules that allow the bulk of the
other code to operate as if only one architecture was supported. It
did take a lot of work, ONE TIME, to get the structure for that
working properly. The ports to a new environment are usually
quite easy, although it didn't appear easy when I first started
the project.

Not every source file will compile in strictly conforming mode,
but the vast majority of them do, and they don't need ANY
modifications when moving to a new platform.

I don't think that is particularly magic, as I'm quite sure a
large number of the regulars here do the same kind of thing on
a regular basis. The point is, they don't feel compelled to
confuse the waters with the "tricky bits" that aren't part of
the standard as those portions are better dealt with in a
newsgroup focused on the particular extension in question.

--
Randy Howard _o
2reply remove FOOBAR \<,
_______________ _______()/ ()_____________ _______________ _______________ ___
SCO Spam-magnet: po********@sco. com
Nov 13 '05 #197
Alan Connor <zz****@xxx.yyy > writes:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:36:07 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks*@cts.com> wrote:
Alan Connor <zz****@xxx.yyy > writes:
[...]
After reading the first 1/3 carefully, it seems to me that a pointer
is very much like a symlink.


That's not a bad analogy. Like any analogy, it can be carried too far
if you're not careful, but it's a good start.


Gottya. Thanks.


Something I forgot to mention before: One if the first things that
breaks down if you carry the "pointers are like symlinks" analogy too
far is that pointers, unlike symlinks, are typed. An object of type
"int*" can only point to an int. (As a special case, "void*" is a
generic pointer type that doesn't point to any specific type of
object; it's a raw address that can be converted to and from other
pointer types.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Nov 13 '05 #198
Alan Connor <zz****@xxx.yyy > writes:
[...]
The fact that a bunch of obvious jerks don't like you is an extremely
good recommendation in my book, Roose.


Alan, I believe you're making a mistake. As a relative newcomer to
this newsgroup, I can certainly understand you not being interested in
some of the recent discussions about topicality and netiquette. Such
things are an unfortunate side effect of having such a free-wheeling
community with no central control.

Roose is, I believe, being deliberately disruptive. Richard and
others (including myself to some extent) have been criticizing him for
his behavior and correcting his misstatements. Richard in particular
has been an extremely valuable and valued contributor to this
newsgroup for many years, because of his technical expertise, his
willingness to share it with others, and his willingness to learn from
others. If you choose to pay attention to Roose and ignore Richard,
the loss will be yours.

That's my advice. Take it or leave it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Nov 13 '05 #199
Randy Howard wrote:
Great. I get killfiled (oh no!) for laughing at the obvious joke RJH was
referring to, with respect to Ritchie and topicality.

So be it.


Being killfiled by such people is like having your car registration number
written down in an eight-year-old car-spotter's notebook as you pass under
the trollbridge at seventy mph. You don't actually notice the event all
that much, and it certainly doesn't affect your life, but it makes /his/
day, and that's what matters.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Nov 13 '05 #200

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.