Who can help me?

[conimus]

I'm new in the programming business and I don't know what program I
should use for begining development?(GNU c++...?)

----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v1.0 Final
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------

[Phlip]

conimus wrote:

I'm new in the programming business and I don't know what program I
should use for begining development?(GNU c++...?)

Download Ruby and its installer, and dive in.

http://www.ruby-lang.org
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinstaller/

You can do things in one line of Ruby that require 20 of C++. (Or 30 of
Java.)

C++ is a rough language that will impede your programming efforts until you
really need it. Then it rocks.

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

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

Download Ruby and its installer, and dive in.

http://www.ruby-lang.org
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinstaller/

You can do things in one line of Ruby that require 20 of C++. (Or 30 of
Java.)

C++ is a rough language that will impede your programming efforts until you
really need it. Then it rocks.

In the end it looks like you are a troll. What a pity.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

conimus wrote:

I'm new in the programming business and I don't know what program I
should use for begining development?(GNU c++...?)

http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html
Download the latest beta from there. It is far better than the last
non-Beta version and it is stable.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

C++ is a rough language that will impede your programming efforts until you really need it. Then it rocks.

In the end it looks like you are a troll. What a pity.

?

I don't go write "Perl sucks" all day on a Perl newsgroup. What did I think
wrong?

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

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

?

I don't go write "Perl sucks" all day on a Perl newsgroup. What did I think
wrong?

The OP asks how can he get a C++ compiler, and your answer is to move to
another language.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Phlip wrote:

?

I don't go write "Perl sucks" all day on a Perl newsgroup. What did I think wrong?

The OP asks how can he get a C++ compiler, and your answer is to move to
another language.

"I'm new in the programming business and I don't know what program I
should use for begining development?(GNU c++...?)"

Probably an English issue; this could be asking what language to learn, or
what C++ compiler program to get. (If the latter, hit http://www.cygwin.com/
, and then use www.google.com to find tutorials on "bash" and Linux.)

However, C++ is neither a good learner's language nor the alpha and omega of
advanced programming. So, tell the OP to learn a much more productive
language first.

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

[Mike Wahler]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098055110.704186@athnrd02...

Phlip wrote:

?

I don't go write "Perl sucks" all day on a Perl newsgroup. What did I think wrong?

I think your ("Phlip") advice was good in principle, but perhaps
also giving your reasons might have helped enlighten the OP.
The OP asks how can he get a C++ compiler,
But first he (imo wisely) informs us he's "new to the
programming business."
and your answer is to move to
another language.

For someone with no programming experience, I agree with "Phlip"
that C++ is probably not the best language choice (but I probably
would not have expressed this the same way he did). I'm not familiar
with Ruby, so I'm not qualified to comment on its suitability for the
novice. Of those languages I am familiar with, I'd recommend BASIC or
Pascal.

IMO sometimes the best "C++ advice" is indeed
"You're not ready for it yet".

Aside (not an assumption or accusation of anyone in particular):
I seem to encounter far too many folks that sincerely believe
knowledge (or even 'mastery') of a single programming language (or
e.g. environment) qualifies them as 'programmers'. I consider this
a false belief. To me a programmer is essentially a problem solver,
of whose more pertinent skills are acquiring cognizance of the
variety of tools available, and selection of the most appropriate
ones for a given task. And imo C++ is not a very good tool to use
for learning programming.

To "conimus":

If you're determined to start with C++, I consider the compiler
package Ioannis recommends to be a decent one. There are others
as well, check the FAQ:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

And get the book

"You Can Do It!" by F. Glassborow

and/or

"Accelerated C++" by Koenig & Moo

Don't try to get everything from the Internet (despite the tempting
nature of 'free stuff'); you'll very likely end up having to 'unlearn'
bad C++ information (which is all over the 'net).

-Mike

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

However, C++ is neither a good learner's language nor the alpha and omega of
advanced programming. So, tell the OP to learn a much more productive
language first.

But Ruby and *interpreted* *scripting* language, whose interpreter is
probably written in C++, is both right?

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Mike Wahler wrote:

Aside (not an assumption or accusation of anyone in particular):
I seem to encounter far too many folks that sincerely believe
knowledge (or even 'mastery') of a single programming language (or
e.g. environment) qualifies them as 'programmers'. I consider this
a false belief. To me a programmer is essentially a problem solver,
of whose more pertinent skills are acquiring cognizance of the
variety of tools available, and selection of the most appropriate
ones for a given task.

Yes, programming is about solving problems including 3D Games :-), and
all languages have their uses, however myself consider C++ to be the
best general purpose programming language which is also efficient.

Also answering to someone asking for a compiler in a language newsgroup,
by telling him to move to another language is trolling.
And imo C++ is not a very good tool to use
for learning programming.

That's your opinion. I think it is a very good one.

Myself began with C90 and moved to C++98. Learning C++98 since the
beginning is a lot easier.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Mike Wahler wrote:

For someone with no programming experience, I agree with "Phlip"
that C++ is probably not the best language choice (but I probably
would not have expressed this the same way he did). I'm not familiar
with Ruby, so I'm not qualified to comment on its suitability for the
novice. Of those languages I am familiar with, I'd recommend BASIC or
Pascal.
Uh, they don't support block closures. Neither do Java nor C#. Block
closures are cool. I can also defend them intellectually, but C++ also lacks
them, so I'l be gentle.

Ruby competes with Smalltalk and Perl, both of which have cognitive issues.
Aside (not an assumption or accusation of anyone in particular):
I seem to encounter far too many folks that sincerely believe
knowledge (or even 'mastery') of a single programming language (or
e.g. environment) qualifies them as 'programmers'. I consider this
a false belief. To me a programmer is essentially a problem solver,
of whose more pertinent skills are acquiring cognizance of the
variety of tools available, and selection of the most appropriate
ones for a given task. And imo C++ is not a very good tool to use
for learning programming.
This program uses C++ for its OpenGL layer and its user interface, and Ruby
for the scripting layer. Horses for courses:

http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Fract...ine/FleaOpenGl

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
Phlip wrote:

However, C++ is neither a good learner's language nor the alpha and omega of advanced programming. So, tell the OP to learn a much more productive
language first.

But Ruby and *interpreted* *scripting* language, whose interpreter is
probably written in C++, is both right?

So what?

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

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

But Ruby and *interpreted* *scripting* language, whose interpreter is
probably written in C++, is both right?

So what?

So Ruby is a special purpose language.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Phlip wrote:

But Ruby and *interpreted* *scripting* language, whose interpreter is
probably written in C++, is both right?

So what?

So Ruby is a special purpose language.

Sure. All applications require a phat and reusable lower level, extending
down thru the operating system, and they require a lite high-level
"command-and-control" layer. You could write in Ruby until your app gets
slow, and migrate the bottlenecks to C++, or you could write in C++ until
your programming gets slow, and then add a scriptable layer on top.

Maybe "command and control" is a special purpose. You could also call it
"glue".

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

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

Sure. All applications require a phat and reusable lower level, extending
down thru the operating system, and they require a lite high-level
"command-and-control" layer. You could write in Ruby until your app gets
slow, and migrate the bottlenecks to C++, or you could write in C++ until
your programming gets slow, and then add a scriptable layer on top.

Maybe "command and control" is a special purpose. You could also call it
"glue".

You were promoting a language in another language newsgroup, as an
answer to a language-specific question. That is trolling, but it may
have not been intentional.

I do not promote C++ in any Ruby newsgroup, although there would be
strong points in many cases.

Ruby is a scripting language, meaning it is a language for automating
relatively simple tasks.

It is also an interpreted language which makes it less space, time and
installation efficient than compiled languages.
Ruby as an alternative to C++ is a joke.
However, using it to do real work with it for scripting tasks can be
great and even fun.
In any case, don't troll.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Mike Wahler]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098058085.870294@athnrd02...

Yes, programming is about solving problems including 3D Games :-), and
all languages have their uses, however myself consider C++ to be the
best general purpose programming language which is also efficient.
Yes, I agree, but still stand by what I wrote:
C++ is not easy to learn, especially for a beginner programmer.
Also answering to someone asking for a compiler in a language newsgroup,
by telling him to move to another language is trolling.

I don't think so. You didn't address context (beginner programmer),
"Phlip" did.

And imo C++ is not a very good tool to use
for learning programming.

That's your opinion. I think it is a very good one.

Myself began with C90 and moved to C++98. Learning C++98 since the
beginning is a lot easier.

I began with assembly on a mainframe, submitted on Hollerith cards.

Yes, I'm "old". :-)

-Mike

[Phlip]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

You were promoting a language in another language newsgroup, as an
answer to a language-specific question. That is trolling, but it may
have not been intentional.
Trolling is intentionally seeking negative attention. I apologize for the
fragility of your universe, but pointing out a good alternative to a
question's direction is not trolling. It's part of what makes USENET work. I
first heard of Linux on this newsgroup, from an enthusiast, long before you
ever joined us.
I do not promote C++ in any Ruby newsgroup, although there would be
strong points in many cases.

Ruby is a scripting language, meaning it is a language for automating
relatively simple tasks.
It's an OO language which can be used for lite scripting tasks.
It is also an interpreted language which makes it less space, time and
installation efficient than compiled languages.

Ruby as an alternative to C++ is a joke.
I think I made a non-trivial case for them complementing each other.

Were I ordered to compare them, I would point out that C++ templates exist
only because nobody had the 'nads to rewrite the compiler, and make classes
into real objects. Then one could pass classes into functions, and many
Design Patterns, such as Prototype, would get much simpler.
However, using it to do real work with it for scripting tasks can be
great and even fun.

In any case, don't troll.

I won't if you won't. ;-)

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

[Mike Wahler]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098058890.510970@athnrd02...

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

That's your opinion. I think it is a very good one.

Myself began with C90 and moved to C++98. Learning C++98 since the
beginning is a lot easier.

I want to mention here that I have also used Pascal, VB and even
Clipper. :-)
However I think that if you want to learn programming and gain
speciality in one language, beginning with a better one than those above
(and why not even the best, this is what I consider C++ to be in terms
of productivity and language expressive abilities) is the best path.

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.
Consider the screenshot attached.
You know better than to post attachments here. In any case
my newsreader dropped it.
Why VB for example would be a better
beginners path?

I didn't recommend VB (nor would I). I said BASIC, not the same thing.
All that built-in platform-specific stuff in VB only would confuse the
beginner,
especially when moving to the next language.

-Mike

[Mike Wahler]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098066868.414870@athnrd02...

Ruby as an alternative to C++ is a joke.

As a learning vehicle, probably not.

However, we're way off topic now.

I'll stop here.

-Mike

[Ioannis Vranos]

Mike Wahler wrote:

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.

Since C++ provides all the high level constructs of most high-level
languages, I can not see why Basic or Pascal would be better for this.

Is there any language construct that Basic provides and C++ lacks?

I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.

You know better than to post attachments here. In any case
my newsreader dropped it.

Outlook Express does not show pictures? In my newsreader the pictures
are shown inlined in the end of the message.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Mike Wahler wrote:

I began with assembly on a mainframe, submitted on Hollerith cards.

Yes, I'm "old". :-)

You have my respect for that.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Phlip wrote:

Trolling is intentionally seeking negative attention. I apologize for the
fragility of your universe, but pointing out a good alternative to a
question's direction is not trolling. It's part of what makes USENET work. I
first heard of Linux on this newsgroup, from an enthusiast, long before you
ever joined us.

Well, it is not that you mentioned Ruby just as a nice way to write
scripting applications, or as an alternative for simple tasks without
efficiency concerns, in a relevant discussion, but as an answer to a
newcomer to C++ who was asking for a C++ compiler.

For me it is the same thing as if you had suggested him to move to Java,
as an answer to his question.

I think I made a non-trivial case for them complementing each other.

Yes. I would not care if it was even a competing language.
What I am debating here is your irrelevant answer. The same thing would
apply if someone had asked in comp.lang.fortran a good fortran compiler
to begin with, and I had suggested him to move in C++ instead.
Were I ordered to compare them, I would point out that C++ templates exist
only because nobody had the 'nads to rewrite the compiler, and make classes
into real objects. Then one could pass classes into functions, and many
Design Patterns, such as Prototype, would get much simpler.

In C++, you can pass classes into functions and still they do not occupy
space.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Phlip]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Mike Wahler wrote:

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.
Since C++ provides all the high level constructs of most high-level
languages, I can not see why Basic or Pascal would be better for this.

Bjarne invented C++ specifically to leverage existing C code. That design
consideration - and the consideration to compete, like C, with Assembler -
taints all of the language's features. The Standard Library, and advanced
libraries like boost.org, provide dozens of ways not to leak. However, as
you learn enough C++ to do more than trivial things, you will still approach
ways to leak, or dangle, or overrun.

Then, when you seek ways to do simple things like Prototype Pattern, or
Execute Around Pattern, you will hit a much steeper learning curve than
languages which make these very easy.
Well, it is not that you mentioned Ruby just as a nice way to write
scripting applications, or as an alternative for simple tasks without
efficiency concerns, in a relevant discussion, but as an answer to a
newcomer to C++ who was asking for a C++ compiler.

Interpreting a question different from you is not trolling.

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

[Ioannis Vranos]

conimus wrote:

I'm new in the programming business and I don't know what program I
should use for begining development?(GNU c++...?)

Check this: http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/learningcpp.htm

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Mike Wahler]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098072588.640108@athnrd02...

Mike Wahler wrote:

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.

Since C++ provides all the high level constructs of most high-level
languages, I can not see why Basic or Pascal would be better for this.

You're still completely missing my point. I'm not talking about
the utility of any language over another, but the (relative) simplicity
of some which make them easier for a beginner to learn programming.
Learn *programming*, not a particular language.

Is there any language construct that Basic provides and C++ lacks?
I never said there were.

I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.
BASIC has always had 'FOR', 'DO', and 'WHILE'.

You know better than to post attachments here. In any case
my newsreader dropped it.

Outlook Express does not show pictures?

Again, you miss the point. Attachments are not welcome in clc++
and virtually any other group without 'binaries' in its name.
In my newsreader the pictures
are shown inlined in the end of the message.

Mine would too, if I configured it to do so. But I don't,
nor do others who value security.

-Mike

[Ioannis Vranos]

Mike Wahler wrote:

You're still completely missing my point. I'm not talking about
the utility of any language over another, but the (relative) simplicity
of some which make them easier for a beginner to learn programming.
Learn *programming*, not a particular language.

Is there any language construct that Basic provides and C++ lacks?

I never said there were.

So if I get it right, are you saying that a language lacking some
advanced features is easier to be used for learning programming, than
another language which provides the same simple features along with the
advanced ones?

I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.

BASIC has always had 'FOR', 'DO', and 'WHILE'.

OK, perhaps I do not remember well after all this time.

Mine would too, if I configured it to do so. But I don't,
nor do others who value security.

Give a try to Mozilla Thunderbird. It is far better and more secure than
OE 6. :-)

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Peter van Merkerk]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Mike Wahler wrote:

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.
Since C++ provides all the high level constructs of most high-level
languages, I can not see why Basic or Pascal would be better for this.

Is there any language construct that Basic provides and C++ lacks?

The fact that C++ supports most high level constructs does make it a
good choice for many projects, but doesn't necessarily make it an ideal
language to learn programming.

One thing I liked when learning BASIC (on a Commodore PET) is you could
enter a line an immediately execute it to see what it does. With Python
(and probably also Ruby) you can do the same. Having direct feedback is
great when learning a language. Also with languages like Python one can
quickly produce nice/useful programs which helps to keep people motivated.
I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.

Modern BASIC's have come a long way since then, but frankly I see no
compelling reason to prefer BASIC over for example Python.

--
Peter van Merkerk
peter.van.merkerk(at)dse.nl

[Ioannis Vranos]

Peter van Merkerk wrote:

The fact that C++ supports most high level constructs does make it a
good choice for many projects, but doesn't necessarily make it an ideal
language to learn programming.

One thing I liked when learning BASIC (on a Commodore PET) is you could
enter a line an immediately execute it to see what it does. With Python
(and probably also Ruby) you can do the same. Having direct feedback is
great when learning a language. Also with languages like Python one can
quickly produce nice/useful programs which helps to keep people motivated.

Nice C++ interpreters:

http://www.softintegration.com

http://root.cern.ch/root/Cint.html

:-)

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Peter van Merkerk wrote:

The fact that C++ supports most high level constructs does make it a
good choice for many projects, but doesn't necessarily make it an
ideal language to learn programming.

One thing I liked when learning BASIC (on a Commodore PET) is you
could enter a line an immediately execute it to see what it does. With
Python (and probably also Ruby) you can do the same. Having direct
feedback is great when learning a language. Also with languages like
Python one can quickly produce nice/useful programs which helps to
keep people motivated.

Nice C++ interpreters:

http://www.softintegration.com

http://root.cern.ch/root/Cint.html

And a very nice simple one that I just discovered on the web:

http://home.mweb.co.za/sd/sdonovan/underc.html

Sample:

UnderC C++ Interpreter vs 1.2.9w
Steve Donovan, 2001-2003
This program is GPL'd; see LICENCE for details
std::cout<<"Hello world!\n";
Hello world!
(std::ostream&) ostream {}
int x=1;
cout<<x<<endl;
1
(std::ostream&) ostream {}
ostream {}

Check this out!

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

And a very nice simple one that I just discovered on the web:

http://home.mweb.co.za/sd/sdonovan/underc.html

I really like it:
UnderC C++ Interpreter vs 1.2.9w
Steve Donovan, 2001-2003
This program is GPL'd; see LICENCE for details

program is GPL'd; see LICENCE for details
template<class T>
inline void f(T x)
{
cout<<x<<endl;
}
;>
;;
;; f(1);
1
;>

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Jerry Coffin]

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<hI*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net>...

[ ... ]

I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.

BASIC has always had 'FOR', 'DO', and 'WHILE'.

Not so. If true, this was probably have prevented Dijkstra's famous
comment about learning to program in BASIC generally causing
irreparable brain damage.

See:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...ing%20language

for a fairly reasonable summary of BASIC as it was originally defined.

OOTC: C++ has always had a reasonable range of control structures (but
Dijkstra would probably disapprove of it anyway).

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Mike Wahler]

"Jerry Coffin" <jc*****@taeus.com> wrote in message
news:b2*************************@posting.google.co m...

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<hI*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net>...
[ ... ]

I remember in the old times when I was at high school, the nice goto
constructs of BASIC to create a loop.

BASIC has always had 'FOR', 'DO', and 'WHILE'.

Not so. If true, this was probably have prevented Dijkstra's famous
comment about learning to program in BASIC generally causing
irreparable brain damage.

OK, I didn't do any research, so should have said simply
"all versions of BASIC I've used." (starting about 25 years ago).

Thanks for the correction and info.

-Mike

[Jerry Coffin]

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<jI***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net>...

[ ... ]

OK, I didn't do any research, so should have said simply
"all versions of BASIC I've used." (starting about 25 years ago).
Ah, the hazards of youth! <G>
Thanks for the correction and info.

Surely. We now return to your regularly scheduled flaming...

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Catalin Pitis]

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:ds*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098058890.510970@athnrd02...

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.

Don't underestimate the power of a novice. I think a lot of programmers
started programming in very low level languages and yet, they succeeded. Why
should be today's novices not so capable :)

I don't enjoy the recommendations like "If you're a beginner, run away from
C++!!". You can still be a C++ programmer on an average level. You don't
have to use all the time the subtleties of the language.

Catalin

[Mike Wahler]

"Catalin Pitis" <ca***********@iquestint.com.renameme> wrote in message
news:2t*************@uni-berlin.de...

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:ds*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at.grad.com> wrote in message
news:1098058890.510970@athnrd02...

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
But what about "learnability" by a novice? I don't think C++
is the way to go.

Don't underestimate the power of a novice.

Each one is unique, yes. I was generalizing.

? I think a lot of programmers started programming in very low level languages and yet, they succeeded.
I'm one of them.
Why
should be today's novices not so capable :)
Some are, others are not.
I don't enjoy the recommendations like "If you're a beginner, run away from C++!!".
The likelihood of success is lower with C++ than with others.
Not impossible, just less likely. For a novice, early success
is important for continued motivation.
You can still be a C++ programmer on an average level.
Some can, others not.
You don't
have to use all the time the subtleties of the language.

No, but there's the rub. A novice could still be exposed to these
subtleties, and not know. With resulting confusion.

-MIke