Learning C

[mfasoccer]

I am sorry if this is an inappropriate place to put this post, if so
please delete it.

I am wondering about a few things. Do you guys recommend learning C as
a second language, as someone who already knows java very well. And
what is the best way to learn C, books, tutorials, or what?

Thanks, any response would be great.

[Micah Cowan]

"mf*******@gmai l.com" <mf*******@gmai l.com> writes:

I am sorry if this is an inappropriate place to put this post, if so
please delete it.
Well, this is an entirely appropriate place for this post, but if it
had not been, deleting the post would be impossible (once you post to
USENET, it stays there, for the most part. Even "cancelling " a post
you made will may affect some but not all servers).
I am wondering about a few things. Do you guys recommend learning C as
a second language, as someone who already knows java very well. And
what is the best way to learn C, books, tutorials, or what?

Thanks, any response would be great.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the folks on this group began
learning C with a book. Unfortunately, there is a very high ratio of
crappy C books to useful C books. I strongly recommend you buy a copy
of K&R C ("The C Programming Language", by Kernighan and Ritchie, 2nd
edition), written by the actual inventors of C. The C language has
actually changed since then, but the language described there is still
the most portable version of the language, and that book is the most
widely recognized

When you've worked through that, you should probably buy a copy of "C:
A Reference Manual" by Harbison & Steele.

See also http://c-faq.com/resources/books.html, which gives a few
pointers on finding good books on C.

Participating in this newsgroup, or on alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++, can
also be /very/ beneficial, /provided/:

1. You thoroughly familiarize yourself with the
rules-of-conduct/posting for the group. This can be accomplished
by reading about 2 weeks' worth of posts before posting
yourself. See what kinds of posts get good responses, and which
get poor ones.

2. You have the humility and good grace to receive constructive
criticisms, both of your code and of any errant behavior on the
group.

HTH,
Micah

[mfasoccer]

Thanks alot for the response, a few minutes after posting I searched
this group and found hundreds of other threads about the same topic. I
apoligize as well for double posting, that was a mistake even though
I'm sure it must look like I tryed to bump my thread.

I wanted as well, to bring forth another concern that I have with
programming in general. Many people say that ACTUALLY PROGRAMMING
real-world programs is the best way to get better. That theory makes
sense, but when I sit down to write a program in java, I often realize
that I have mastered the sytnax and searching and sorting algorithms,
yet I cannot apply this to a real-world program. Are there any books
for C or websites that explain the analytical thinking or other tactics
involved in practical uses of C?

[Richard Heathfield]

mf*******@gmail .com said:

Are there any books
for C or websites that explain the analytical thinking or other tactics
involved in practical uses of C?

Your best starting point is the book Micah mentioned. It has a bunch of
exercises scattered throughout each chapter. Do them. It's astoundingly
good training for practical C use. As for analytical thinking, you could do
worse than stick around in comp.lang.c - some of the regular contributors
are fine exponents of the art. (See also Knuth's "The Art of Computer
Programming" - all three volumes - and don't be put off by the mathemagical
flavour.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[mb1471]

I hear it is very important to use a linux machine for c programming,
is this just a common myth or is there any truth there. I have been
considering switching to linux for this reason, but I'm not sure if
it's worth it..?

[CBFalconer]

"mf*******@gmai l.com" wrote:

Thanks alot for the response, a few minutes after posting I searched
this group and found hundreds of other threads about the same topic. I
apoligize as well for double posting, that was a mistake even though
I'm sure it must look like I tryed to bump my thread.

I wanted as well, to bring forth another concern that I have with
programming in general. Many people say that ACTUALLY PROGRAMMING
real-world programs is the best way to get better. That theory makes
sense, but when I sit down to write a program in java, I often realize
that I have mastered the sytnax and searching and sorting algorithms,
yet I cannot apply this to a real-world program. Are there any books
for C or websites that explain the analytical thinking or other tactics
involved in practical uses of C?

Our own Richard Heathfield has published such a book in "C
Unleashed". So have Kernighan & Pike "The Practice of
Programming". One of the best is Wirths "Algorithms + Data
Structures = Programs".

Get in the immediate habit of including adequate context in any
replies. Don't let the fact that you are posting through that
abortion of a usenet interface offered by google faze you. Read my
sig. below, and read the referenced URLs. Google IS NOT usenet.

All usenet articles need to stand by themselves. There is no
guarantee that any particular other article has ever reached, or
ever will reach, the reader. Even if it has, it may have been
deleted, or just be awkward to view. So quote adequately, and snip
quoted material that is irrelevant to your reply. Do not top-post,
your answer belongs after (or intermixed with) the material to
which you reply.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell. org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsrep ly/>

[Richard Heathfield]

mb1471 said:

I hear it is very important to use a linux machine for c programming,
is this just a common myth or is there any truth there.
It's a common myth - and like many myths, it has a huge amount of truth
behind it.

C is a portable language. Any box you can find a C compiler (or
cross-compiler) for, you can use for C programming. And if you write your
code carefully, very often the only thing you have to do to get your
program working on a different system is to recompile on the new system.
So, for example, you write your Widgetalyser on a Mac, get it working, copy
it over to a mainframe, recompile, and hey, presto! It works on the
mainframe too. And, one recompile later, it works on Linux too. And maybe
even on your mobile phone or microwave oven. (Er - maybe.)
I have been
considering switching to linux for this reason, but I'm not sure if
it's worth it..?

Oh, it's worth it all right. But perhaps you should put in a couple of years
on a Windows box first, just so that you'll be *really grateful* when you
change over. ;-)

Seriously, I don't like Windows (having used it for many years), I do like
Linux (having used it for a few years), but C doesn't care. You can get
good C compilers for Windows easily enough, legally for free in many cases.
The only thing to watch - er, one of a few things to watch is that you need
to be very firm with your typical Windows development environment. Be sure
to save your files with a .c extension, not a .cpp extension. Typical
Windows compilers will see a .cpp extension as an invitation to use C++
rules instead of C rules when compiling - with, as the saying goes, the
usual hilarious results.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Nick Keighley]

Richard G. Riley wrote:

"mf*******@gmai l.com"posted the following on 2006-03-10:

Thanks alot for the response, a few minutes after posting I searched
this group and found hundreds of other threads about the same topic. I
apoligize as well for double posting, that was a mistake even though
I'm sure it must look like I tryed to bump my thread.

I wanted as well, to bring forth another concern that I have with
programming in general. Many people say that ACTUALLY PROGRAMMING
real-world programs is the best way to get better. That theory makes
sense, but when I sit down to write a program in java, I often realize
that I have mastered the sytnax and searching and sorting algorithms,
yet I cannot apply this to a real-world program. Are there any books
for C or websites that explain the analytical thinking or other tactics
involved in practical uses of C?

One great way is to analyse existing systems. You mentioned moving to
Linux : this is a great idea because you can compile and step through
existing apps with the debugger.

could we keep the platform bigotry down to a dull roar? Windows has
perfectly good debuggers available as well. So if you really want to
(I've never had the urge) you can "step through existing apps".

I've developed serious applications on both Linux and Windows. They are

both perfectly adequate. It is completly possible to develop
applications
on windows. For heavens sake Windows was *written* in C!

<snip>
--
Nick Keighley

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-03-10, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:

mb1471 said:

I hear it is very important to use a linux machine for c programming,
is this just a common myth or is there any truth there.

It's a common myth - and like many myths, it has a huge amount of truth
behind it.

You forgot to mention what that truth is.

Linux, as a "unix-like" system, has a great deal of cultural heritage
that is a good "fit" for C, as C was originally developed for UNIX. This
can be useful [it's probably the type of system on which the implement-
ation of the standard functions is going to be most straightforward *],
but also dangerous [a lot of things that aren't really defined by the
standard are going to happen to work the way you'll assume they should]

*Note I wouldn't actually recommend trying to _read_ the glibc source,
though. If you seriously plan on doing that, get a unixy OS other than
linux. Say, FreeBSD. or Mac OSX. or SCO [well, that doesn't come with
source code, but i'm sure its source code is still more readable than
glibc even so]. really, anything.

[Nick Keighley]

Richard G. Riley wrote:

"Nick"poste d the following on 2006-03-10:

Richard G. Riley wrote:

"mf*******@gmai l.com"posted the following on 2006-03-10:

> Thanks alot for the response, a few minutes after posting I searched
> this group and found hundreds of other threads about the same topic. I
> apoligize as well for double posting, that was a mistake even though
> I'm sure it must look like I tryed to bump my thread.
>
> I wanted as well, to bring forth another concern that I have with
> programming in general. Many people say that ACTUALLY PROGRAMMING
> real-world programs is the best way to get better. That theory makes
> sense, but when I sit down to write a program in java, I often realize
> that I have mastered the sytnax and searching and sorting algorithms,
> yet I cannot apply this to a real-world program. Are there any books
> for C or websites that explain the analytical thinking or other tactics
> involved in practical uses of C?

One great way is to analyse existing systems. You mentioned moving to
Linux : this is a great idea because you can compile and step through
existing apps with the debugger.

could we keep the platform bigotry down to a dull roar? Windows has
perfectly good debuggers available as well. So if you really want to
(I've never had the urge) you can "step through existing apps".

No you cant. Firstly, I use multiple OSs : windows, OS/2 and Linux so
get away with your attempt to suggest this is an OS war bigotry.

Secondly, what system apps are you aware of in windows which come with
the C source code? Most are in C++ anyway. Most Gnome/Linux system is
in C. The OP was asking about C.

I thought you were implying Linux was better because the *debugger* was

better. I've never stepped through an existing application (that wasn't
broken)
with a debugger. If you say it's a good way to learn C, who am I to
argue.

But it *still* sounds bizzare to me

<snip>
--
Nick Keighley