Confused about learning C++

[utab]

Dear,

I have experince in C( numerical projects, like engineering problems,
scientific applications) I have the basic notion of C++ also, I have
read Accelerated C++ until Chapter 7, however it seems that it
discusses the std and the other part of the language with your own
abstractions. Is that better to read a book first on the basic concepts
of C++ language (but not the C part) that gives the basics as if the
reader is a beginner such as

C++ Primer Plus by Prata
Teach Yourself C++ in 21 days by Liberty...

or any other book that you would recommend for first step reading. I am
a bit confused how to proceed.

Thx in advance.

Regards.

[Hiker Hauk]

Hi there,

I suggest that you should do plenty of practice before you move to
senior topics.
When you've done enough practice, you'll understand it naturally.

Reagrds.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

utab wrote:

Dear,

I have experince in C( numerical projects, like engineering problems,
scientific applications) I have the basic notion of C++ also, I have
read Accelerated C++ until Chapter 7, however it seems that it
discusses the std and the other part of the language with your own
abstractions. Is that better to read a book first on the basic concepts
of C++ language (but not the C part) that gives the basics as if the
reader is a beginner such as

C++ Primer Plus by Prata
Teach Yourself C++ in 21 days by Liberty...

or any other book that you would recommend for first step reading. I am
a bit confused how to proceed.

I have no book recommendations , however, I would suggest to learn C++
concepts in the following order:

* standard library: containers, iterators, algorithms, streams.
* classes.
* function objects.
* exceptions and flow control via throw/catch.
* templates.
* smart pointers (e.g., tr1::shared_ptr <> )
* raw pointers and arrays.

I didn't do it in that order; and I feel that, as a consequence, it took me
quite some time before simple and straight forward solutions to common
problems came to me naturally.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Bo Persson]

"utab" <um********@gma il.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:11******** **************@ z14g2000cwz.goo glegroups.com.. .

Dear,

I have experince in C( numerical projects, like engineering
problems,
scientific applications) I have the basic notion of C++ also, I have
read Accelerated C++ until Chapter 7, however it seems that it
discusses the std and the other part of the language with your own
abstractions. Is that better to read a book first on the basic
concepts
of C++ language (but not the C part) that gives the basics as if the

The point of this book is that the standard library *is* an integral
part of the C++ language. It is a clear intention that you should
learn to use the library classes, and build your own abstractions from
that.

Part of your confusion might be that this book treats C++ a language
totally different from C. A very good idea, IMO.
Bo Persson

[benben]

> I have no book recommendations , however, I would suggest to learn C++

concepts in the following order:

* standard library: containers, iterators, algorithms, streams.
* classes.
* function objects.
* exceptions and flow control via throw/catch.
* templates.
* smart pointers (e.g., tr1::shared_ptr <> )
* raw pointers and arrays.

I didn't do it in that order; and I feel that, as a consequence, it took me
quite some time before simple and straight forward solutions to common
problems came to me naturally.

I don't suggest learning C++ concepts with any particular order.
Instead, swallow the basics of everything then come back and revisit all
of those and come back...the iteration never quite ends for me.

Ben

[Tomás]

I have no book recommendations , however, I would suggest to learn C++
concepts in the following order:

* standard library: containers, iterators, algorithms, streams.
* classes.
* function objects.
* exceptions and flow control via throw/catch.
* templates.
* smart pointers (e.g., tr1::shared_ptr <> )
* raw pointers and arrays.

I practically learned it all the other way round!

I would always advocate teaching the actual language itself before moving
on to its Standard Libraries.

For instance, I would teach:

+ Variables
+ Pointers
+ Arrays
+ Functions
+ Structures
+ Exceptions
+ Templates
+ Classes

After that, I'd show them the Standard Library.

-Tomás

[Daniel T.]

In article <11************ **********@z14g 2000cwz.googleg roups.com>,
"utab" <um********@gma il.com> wrote:

Dear,

I have experince in C( numerical projects, like engineering problems,
scientific applications) I have the basic notion of C++ also, I have
read Accelerated C++ until Chapter 7, however it seems that it
discusses the std and the other part of the language with your own
abstractions. Is that better to read a book first on the basic concepts
of C++ language (but not the C part) that gives the basics as if the
reader is a beginner such as
I'm not sure what "the basic parts of C++ (but not the C part)" is. Are
you talking about things like keywords that are in C++ but not C?

I don't have the book, but in looking over the source code from the web
site, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job of it.

What is it that you feel you are missing out on? You'll be writing your
own classes soon (about chapter 9 it looks like) and you already are
using structs...

C++ Primer Plus by Prata
Teach Yourself C++ in 21 days by Liberty...

or any other book that you would recommend for first step reading. I am
a bit confused how to proceed.

I suggest you continue with the book you have. Do all the exorcises in
it. Ask us questions is you have problems, and/or find a tutor in your
area who is willing to work with you...
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.

[Bo Persson]

"Tomás" <NU**@NULL.NULL > skrev i meddelandet
news:gG******** **********@news .indigo.ie...

I have no book recommendations , however, I would suggest to learn
C++
concepts in the following order:

* standard library: containers, iterators, algorithms, streams.
* classes.
* function objects.
* exceptions and flow control via throw/catch.
* templates.
* smart pointers (e.g., tr1::shared_ptr <> )
* raw pointers and arrays.

I practically learned it all the other way round!

I would always advocate teaching the actual language itself before
moving
on to its Standard Libraries.

For instance, I would teach:

+ Variables
+ Pointers
+ Arrays
+ Functions
+ Structures
+ Exceptions
+ Templates
+ Classes

That's exactly what the "Accelerate d C++" book is trying to avoid.
:-)

By introducing streams and strings in chapter 1, and pointers (as "a
kind of random access iterators") in chapter 10, the book is teaching
C++ as a language of its own. Not some kind of C-language.

The focus is on std::string, not C style strings, on using what is
already in the library, like algorithms and containers, introducing
the iterator concept while you go. It then goes on to introduce
generic functions (write your own templates!), class types,
constructors and destructors.

Only then, and mostly to be able to explain what the 'const char*'
type means for a string literal, does it mention pointers and arrays.
Reluctantly!

Then, in chapters 11 and 12, we go on the define abstract data types,
and classes that behave like values. Much more useful, and important
in C++!
If you haven't tried it, you really should. I had great fun reading
it!

:-)

Bo Persson

[Roland Pibinger]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:41:21 +0100, "Bo Persson" <bo*@gmb.dk> wrote:

The point of this book is that the standard library *is* an integral
part of the C++ language.
No, a language is a language and a library is just a library, even
though it's the Standard library.
It is a clear intention that you should
learn to use the library classes, and build your own abstractions from
that.
According to Stroustrup, C++ is a 'Multiparadigm Language'. I don't
see the point in learning the most difficult and unser unfriendly
paradigm first or even solely.
Part of your confusion might be that this book treats C++ a language
totally different from C.
The OO paradigm is much more different from procedural C programming
than the moderately functional STL/generic programming paradigm. The
main difference is template instead of preprocessor obfuscation. A
good C programmer can understand the basics of STL in 10 minutes.
A very good idea, IMO.

I beg to differ.

Best wishes,
Roland Pibinger

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Roland Pibinger:

* Bo Persson:

The point of this book is that the standard library *is* an integral
part of the C++ language.

No, a language is a language and a library is just a library, even
though it's the Standard library.

Reality check: the built in language feature operator new throws a
std::bad_alloc exception, which comes from the library. nothrow, which
is part of the core syntax, also comes from the library. There isn't a
clear demarcation between core language and library.

Many features that are integral parts of other languages have been left
out in the C++ core language because they could be implemented as
library solutions.

Thus, in comparision with other languages, one must include at least
those parts of the standard library (vector, string, and the upcoming
array, tuple and shared_ptr classes), and the question is where one
subjectively draws the line between core language support and pure
"added value". The authors of Accelerated C++ seemingly think most of
the library belongs with the language proper. I think less of it
belongs with the language proper (I especially hate iostreams!), but
nevertheless I agree with the viewpoint that using the library is the
only good way to introduce C++ -- because raw pointers and arrays and
C i/o and the like is just too error-prone, and stands in the way.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?