By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,240 Members | 782 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,240 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Should I learn C++ or Java now?

P: n/a
I have read many of the topics on learning C++ or Java first.
It seems like everyone says something different.
I would like to know if I should learn C++ or Java.
First a little about myself.
I know PHP, BASIC, and of course HTML.
I'll be 15 years old in September.
I am interested in programming GUI applications.
I am also interested in programming games.
I know that I should learn C++ to program games, but would learning
Java make the process any easier? Or am I better of just diving right
into C++?
Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
BASIC?

Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

A teenager in desperate need of advice,
Elijah
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
55 Replies


P: n/a
Elijah wrote:
I have read many of the topics on learning C++ or Java first.
It seems like everyone says something different.
I would like to know if I should learn C++ or Java.
First a little about myself.
I know PHP, BASIC, and of course HTML.
I'll be 15 years old in September.
I am interested in programming GUI applications.
I am also interested in programming games.
I know that I should learn C++ to program games
but would learning Java make the process any easier?
Or am I better of just diving right into C++?
Are there any recommended books on Java or C++
(depending on which language I should learn first)
for the beginner who only know PHP and BASIC?

Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

A teenager in desperate need of advice,


It would probably be more fun to learn Java first.

Programming games today is about high performance graphics.
Take as many math courses as you can get and *pay attention*!

Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Elijah" <el***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63**************************@posting.google.c om...
I have read many of the topics on learning C++ or Java first.
It seems like everyone says something different.
I would like to know if I should learn C++ or Java.
First a little about myself.
I know PHP, BASIC, and of course HTML.
I'll be 15 years old in September.
I am interested in programming GUI applications.
I am also interested in programming games.
I know that I should learn C++ to program games, but would learning
Java make the process any easier? Or am I better of just diving right
into C++?
Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
BASIC?

Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

A teenager in desperate need of advice,
Elijah


I wouldn't recommend learning Java as an expedient to learning C++. Learn
Java if you want to program in Java. If your ultimate goal is to learn C++
start right away. There are GUI programming tools in just about every
language today, so I don't see that as a language selection criterion.

You might also consider Python. It has a lot to offer.

--
Cy
http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
> learning C++ is best done aftee u learn c thoroughly

If you really want to learn C++ I would not take the C detour first. I
you learn C first thoroughly (like I did), you will have to unlearn a
lot when you are start programming C++. The problem is that even though
almost all C constructs still work in C++, they are often not
appropriate in a C++ context because C++ offers usually much better
alternatives.
Because u wud be able to make a differece between language specific
syntactical info(in C) and object oriented concepts of C++
Once u learn language syntax in C thorughly , when u start learning C++ u wud be able to apprciate the OOPS concepts in C++,
C++ doesn't force you to use OOP concepts. Consequently I see still many
programmers with a C background essentially programming C with C++. The
learning the syntax of a new programming language is usually the easiest
part. Learning new concepts behind it is much harder. The transistion
from Pascal to C was very easy for me, I only had to get familiar with
another syntax. However the transition from C to C++ was much harder
because I had to learn whole new concepts and new ways to structure
code.
Java since its made a platform independent it will be too heavy on u if u are not sure of basic concepts of a high level language ,


Java can be a perfectly acceptable language to learn programming.
However if the goal is to learn C++ I wouldn't take that detour either.

I don't think that the language you use to learn programming is all that
important. I started programming with BASIC on a C64, hardly an ideal
start. Yet it learned me basic concepts like variables, loops,
sub-routines...etc, concepts you will find in just about any other
language. I do believe that quick and positive feedback is advantage
when learning to program. On the C64 I could enter a line of code, press
enter and see the results. With Python I can do the same thing, and with
Python you can learn many of the important concepts including OOP. Once
you have mastered the basic concepts, learning a new programming
language becomes a lot easier.

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

Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
Eljah> Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
Eljah> language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
Eljah> BASIC?
Eljah>
Eljah> Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

Go to your local second hand bookstore and find the books
on Java and C++. You'll probably find lots of both of them.
Decide on the language by the documentation that you can get.
It is not easy to recognize a good book but some general
guidelines are:

-good books are heavy books
-good books have a good index
-good books have a good Table of Contents at the start (except
for Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Programming Language, that has a
lousy Table of Content. There is also something with the backside
of it that I must always look twice to find it. But the weight will tell
me I'm right)

Some Java books have a CD-ROM in the back with a compiler and
tools that you need to start programming. If you plan to jump in quickly
with a high level object oriented language, I'd advice Java. With C++,
you'll have to go through a lot of grunch. But it pays of.

-X
Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Elijah" <el***********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63**************************@posting.google.c om...
I have read many of the topics on learning C++ or Java first.
It seems like everyone says something different.
That is because the answer to your question depends very much on what
the objectives are. Even though many people believe differently, there
is no single perfect programming language for every possible
application. But whatever your choice will be, you can't really go
wrong. Worst thing that may happen is that you did not take the most
direct way to reach your goal, but even that experience may be valuable.
I would like to know if I should learn C++ or Java.
First a little about myself.
I know PHP, BASIC, and of course HTML.
I'll be 15 years old in September.
I am interested in programming GUI applications.
I am also interested in programming games.
I know that I should learn C++ to program games, but would learning
Java make the process any easier? Or am I better of just diving right
into C++?
If C++ is your goal go straight for C++, even though the learning curve
of C++ is steeper. At first sight Java and C++ may look deceptively
similar, but there are some major conceptual differences between the
two. These differences can make a transition from Java to C++ difficult.
Are there any recommended books on Java or C++


"Accelerated C++" (http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/ ) is usually
recommended as an excellent beginners C++ book for people with some
programming experience.

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


Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Agent Mulder" <mb*******************@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bf**********@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>...
Eljah> Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
Eljah> language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
Eljah> BASIC?
Eljah>
Eljah> Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

Go to your local second hand bookstore and find the books
on Java and C++. You'll probably find lots of both of them.
Decide on the language by the documentation that you can get.
It is not easy to recognize a good book but some general
guidelines are:


http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm

<snip>
Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
mjm
Find out if games are actually programmed in Java, ie. talk to game
programmers.
If the answer is yes do Java since it is more than just a language it
comes with an enormous number of tools that can be used very easily.
In C++ you have to acquire libraries and although this is possible you
have to find out how to install them and link against them which are
issues which you don't have with Java.

While you can draw something on the screen immediately in Java once
you understand the use of classes in Java it will take much more
effort in C++.

C++ as a language is probably 3 times as extensive and complicated as
Java.

Moreover the problem is not only the language but also the tools which
are needed to build (compile and link) a program and what sort of
error messages these tools produce. If you can't handle these tools
you won't ever get to the level where there is any difference between
C++ and Java and certainly not to the point of programming games. You
will not have code that executes.

This process is much simpler in Java with decent error messages that
tell you what goes wrong and where. In C++ you might see

"program was terminated since SIGNAL 11 (segmentation fault) was
received".

Where? Why? What? ----- you find it out and learn how to use the
debugger.

Linker errors in C++ are ultimate horror:
"In function <incomprehensible string, seemingly unrelated to your
program> undefined reference to <ghastly string, 1000 characters all
on one line, scroll right for minutes>".

Sometimes the function where supposedly the undefined reference
occured is one you have never heard of, the file resides in a
directory you did not even know existed and when you look it up there
surely is no reference to your function at all.

It will take a long time until you can even read these error messages.
It is very daunting.

I have dealt with programs consisting of about 100 classes without
ever using the debugger in Java. I have also written and compiled
classes that compiled right away and worked correctly. That has never
happened to me in C++.
I am about 3 times faster in Java than in C++.

On the other hand C++ is the pinnacle of programming languages and it
produces very fast code. It also forces extreme discipline on you
otherwise you won't make it. Plan on programming sessions lasting 20
hours and longer. If you can't stomach that C++ is not for you. You
will also need help fom other C++ programmers. It is very unlikely
that you will succeed in isolation.
Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a

Gavin Deane wrote:
[...]
http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...9973D%40web.de
(Subject: Re: Book reviewer)

My, in the meantime the counter jumped from 840 to 939. Geezes.
Francis is 'the-1K-computer-book-man'. Almost.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Agent Mulder" <mb*******************@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bf**********@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>...
Eljah> Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
Eljah> language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
Eljah> BASIC?
<snip>
Go to your local second hand bookstore and find the books
on Java and C++. You'll probably find lots of both of them.
Decide on the language by the documentation that you can get.
It is not easy to recognize a good book but some general
guidelines are:

-good books are heavy books
No! Some big books are terrible.

books with titles like:-
"Learn <anything> In 21 Days For Morons"
-good books have a good index
-good books have a good Table of Contents at the start (except
for Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Programming Language, that has a
lousy Table of Content. There is also something with the backside
of it that I must always look twice to find it. But the weight will tell
me I'm right)


Mr Stoustrup's book is excellent. Possibly a bit tough for a beginner.
You (Elijah) arn't a complete beginner.

<snip>
--
Nick Keighley

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
> -good books are heavy books

I'm going to have to argue with you on this one. K&R 2nd eddition is
probably the best book on C I have ever read. It's also one of the
smallest/lightest books I have ever read.
-good books have a good index
-good books have a good Table of Contents at the start (except
for Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Programming Language, that has a
lousy Table of Content. There is also something with the backside
of it that I must always look twice to find it. But the weight will tell
me I'm right)


Another thing I have noticed quite often is that the /flashy/ books seem to
have nothing good on the inside. In general, it's the ugliest books, which
I find to be the best.

Sean
Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
AJ
el***********@yahoo.com (Elijah) wrote in message news:<63**************************@posting.google. com>...
I have read many of the topics on learning C++ or Java first.
It seems like everyone says something different.
I would like to know if I should learn C++ or Java.
First a little about myself.
I know PHP, BASIC, and of course HTML.
I'll be 15 years old in September.
I am interested in programming GUI applications.
I am also interested in programming games.
I know that I should learn C++ to program games, but would learning
Java make the process any easier? Or am I better of just diving right
into C++?
Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
BASIC?

Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

A teenager in desperate need of advice,
Elijah


Not to sound condescending, but programming games and GUI's is not as
fun as you think, and I speak from experience. When I first got
started in programming, I thought, "wow, i want to make games and
guis". I am sure a lot of people thought this way as well. You state
that there is a rift between those who believe C++ should be the first
language learned, and those who believe Java should be learned. What
makes you think the responses here will be any different? To answer
your question, before picking up a book on game programming in java
nd/or C++, you would be better suited to evaluate your mathematical
abilities, you will need them to program games.
Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a


Peter van Merkerk wrote:
learning C++ is best done aftee u learn c thoroughly


If you really want to learn C++ I would not take the C detour first. I
you learn C first thoroughly (like I did), you will have to unlearn a
lot when you are start programming C++. The problem is that even though
almost all C constructs still work in C++, they are often not
appropriate in a C++ context because C++ offers usually much better
alternatives.

This is one of those things I strongly disagree with. Learning C first
(to my mind) did not hamper me the least in learning C++. The OO
methodology was pretty easy to learn, and I was already familiar with
many constructs. There was little or nothing that I had to unlearn.

That being said, I also don't advocated learning C merely as a stepping
stone to C++. Learn C if you want to program in C, or to gain experience
in a popular procedural language. It is good for anyone serious about
programming to learn a number of languages of different types. I'd also
recommend becoming familiar with LISP.

Does learning C first help? A bit perhaps. Does it "poison the well"?
Nonsense.
Brian Rodenborn
Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
sp*******@yahoo.com (mjm) writes:
Find out if games are actually programmed in Java, ie. talk to game
programmers.
No. Note that for certain popular game platforms - e.g., ps2, xbox,
gamecube, gba, there is no availible java implementation. So as
far as games are concerned, Java is 'write-once, and then re-write
from scratch in C++'. :-)
If the answer is yes do Java since it is more than just a language it
comes with an enormous number of tools that can be used very easily.
Do your java tools come with a profiler? A profiler is essential for
modern action games.
In C++ you have to acquire libraries and although this is possible you
have to find out how to install them and link against them which are
issues which you don't have with Java.
If you think you don't have to understand those issues Java, I wonder
how you would fare if you had to write a large Java
application. Probably you come to hide under the table in terror
everytime you had a class path problem.
While you can draw something on the screen immediately in Java once
you understand the use of classes in Java it will take much more
effort in C++.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. First, drawing on
the screen has nothing to do with classes. Second, it is
impossible to draw on the screen in C++; the C++ standard contains
no mention of any such thing. You must use OpenGL, driectX, or
other platform-specific library. (Possibly one implemented by you
in assembler and video-chip microcode :-)
C++ as a language is probably 3 times as extensive and complicated as
Java.
Why do you say 3? (I'd say 'an order magnitude' - a phrase which is
intended to convey both a great difference and an inability to
measure the difference precisely. :-)
Moreover the problem is not only the language but also the tools which
are needed to build (compile and link) a program and what sort of
error messages these tools produce. If you can't handle these tools
you won't ever get to the level where there is any difference between
C++ and Java and certainly not to the point of programming games. You
will not have code that executes.

This process is much simpler in Java with decent error messages that
tell you what goes wrong and where. In C++ you might see

"program was terminated since SIGNAL 11 (segmentation fault) was
received".

Where? Why? What? ----- you find it out and learn how to use the
debugger.
No. You learn to review code. If you do not review your C++ code it
will not work - there all kinds of errors one can make in C++ that
will sneak right past your debugger.

Linker errors in C++ are ultimate horror:
"In function <incomprehensible string, seemingly unrelated to your
program> undefined reference to <ghastly string, 1000 characters all
on one line, scroll right for minutes>".
I'm glad it's been 3 years since I had to use a C++ environment whose
linker dumped mangled names at me. Today, it seems every C++
implementation I have has name-demangling linker.
Sometimes the function where supposedly the undefined reference
occured is one you have never heard of, the file resides in a
directory you did not even know existed and when you look it up there
surely is no reference to your function at all.
I have certinaly seen some bad error message, but none of this sort.

It will take a long time until you can even read these error messages.
It is very daunting.
It is better to read the code. The answer is usually there. Only read
the error message when you are convinced you cannot find it in the
code.
I have dealt with programs consisting of about 100 classes without
ever using the debugger in Java. I have also written and compiled
classes that compiled right away and worked correctly. That has never
happened to me in C++.
I am about 3 times faster in Java than in C++.
If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?
On the other hand C++ is the pinnacle of programming languages
No language is 'the pinnacle of programming languages'. Many have
erroneously claimed to be, but C++ never has - even Bjarne
Stroustrup has said such things as 'if you like smalltalk, go use
it', 'if you need garbage collection, other languages have it,
maybe you could use one of those' and 'C++ shouldn't try to be all
things to all people'.
and it
produces very fast code. It also forces extreme discipline on you
otherwise you won't make it. Plan on programming sessions lasting 20
hours and longer.

[snip]

20 hours? Bad, bad, _*BAD*_ advice. No. To write working C++, you must
have a clear and alert mind. You must not overlook small
details. Very few people are clear and alert for 20 hours at a
time. In fact, I strongly advise no more than 2 (yes, 2!) hours
between breaks, and no more than 8 hours (yes 8!) a day of solely
programming. If you are working 16 or 20 hours a day, your excess
hours are usually better spent in design, documentation, study,
or code review.
Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
"llewelly" <ll*********@xmission.dot.com> wrote...
sp*******@yahoo.com (mjm) writes:
Find out if games are actually programmed in Java, ie. talk to game
programmers.


No. Note that for certain popular game platforms - e.g., ps2, xbox,
gamecube, gba, there is no availible java implementation. So [...]


Why are we discussing Java _here_? Shouldn't the entire thread
move to 'comp.games.development.programming.misc'?
Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
> Does learning C first help? A bit perhaps. Does it "poison the well"?
Nonsense.


Just read this newsgroup for a while and you will see my point.

--
Peter van Merkerk
peter.van.merkerk(at)dse.nl
Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Peter van Merkerk" <me*****@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:bf************@ID-133164.news.uni-berlin.de...
Does learning C first help? A bit perhaps. Does it "poison the well"?
Nonsense.


Just read this newsgroup for a while and you will see my point.

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


I DO read the newsgroup, and I DO see your point. I see it very clearly. :)

--
Cy
http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/
Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a


Peter van Merkerk wrote:
Does learning C first help? A bit perhaps. Does it "poison the well"?
Nonsense.


Just read this newsgroup for a while and you will see my point.

Uhmmm, I first posted to this group in June of 1999, and so have been
reading it with fair regularity for at least that four years (I'm sure
at least a month prior to that date). As such, I don't see your point.

Can people program badly in C++? Sure. Can people stupidly try apply
things they've learned from other languages to programming in C++? You
bet. But is learning C first a handicap? I don't think so.

Brian Rodenborn
Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
mjm
>
If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?


Your approval is not necessary to be here.
Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...

If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?


Your approval is not necessary to be here.


It's apparently you who thinks the question was about any kind
of "approval to be here". You advocate using Java in a C++
newsgroup. Answer this question: what are your motivations?
Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message
news:vh************@corp.supernews.com...
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...
If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?

Your approval is not necessary to be here.

It's apparently you who thinks the question was about any kind
of "approval to be here". You advocate using Java in a C++
newsgroup. Answer this question: what are your motivations?


I never knew this was advocacy group for C++. Though I don't agree with
MJMs assessment, I don't think that postings here suggesting that Java
is a better choice should be censored by default either. If Java fits
the bill better than C++ (sometimes it does, but IMHO not in this case)
then by all means use it.

--
Peter van Merkerk
peter.van.merkerk(at)dse.nl
Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
"Peter van Merkerk" <me*****@deadspam.com> wrote...
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message
news:vh************@corp.supernews.com...
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...
> If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?
Your approval is not necessary to be here. It's apparently you who thinks the question was about any kind
of "approval to be here". You advocate using Java in a C++
newsgroup. Answer this question: what are your motivations?


I never knew this was advocacy group for C++.


It's not.
Though I don't agree with
MJMs assessment, I don't think that postings here suggesting that Java
is a better choice should be censored by default either.
Neither do I.
If Java fits
the bill better than C++ (sometimes it does, but IMHO not in this case)
then by all means use it.


Sure thing.

Peter, I think some emotions (perhaps rubbing off from earlier in
the thread) make you jump to conclusions. I asked the question.
Why do you need to see some kind of a hidden agenda behind it?
Why do you think it's an attempt to censor anything or a statement
against anything?

I am in no way against Java or any other language. However, bold
statements indicating superiority of anything over something else,
which usually aren't or cannot be substantiated, lead to agitated
state of the participants of the discussion. If that (agitation)
is _not_ the intention, some kind of calming interruption is needed.
I simply asked the question to see if 'mjm' had anything to say
that would clear him/her of my suspicion.

Yes, I suspect that 'mjm' is trolling (wilfully or not). But I
can be mistaken and that's why I've asked the question.

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. There is no need to jump on
anyone's throat. Yet.

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]
I simply asked the question to see if 'mjm' had anything to say
that would clear him/her of my suspicion.

Yes, I suspect that 'mjm' is trolling (wilfully or not). ....


Bazarov, one thing is pretty clear: your "motivation" is nothing but
trollophobia (a serious mental disease). Oh boy, I think that you're
suffering from it pretty badly. Condolences, my poor friend.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. I've emailed you some spare killfile segments; you know, "just
in case".
Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
try www.python.org, everybody loves python!
Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
mjm
> Answer this question: what are your motivations?

Strictly to give my subjective assessment of the relative difficulties
of working with Java and C++.

If someone comes from PHP and HTML would you recommend Stroustrup to him?
Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...
Answer this question: what are your motivations?
Strictly to give my subjective assessment of the relative difficulties
of working with Java and C++.


Giving your subjective assessment is the means. But what is
the goal? Are you trying to convince somebody that Java is
easier to work with somehow? I'm asking because I can't say
that behind all that "I wrote tons of Java code that worked
the first time and never neede to use a debugger on it" there
is anything informative. And, to be honest with you, I am not
sure you're not exxagerrating. Are you?
If someone comes from PHP and HTML would you recommend Stroustrup to him?


Yes, I would. That's the book I used while learning C++ and
I still think that it's the best book on the subject. The
"Accelerated C++" is a good alternative. It wasn't available
to me years ago, which may have created some bias.

It doesn't matter where they come from. What matters is whether
they are willing to learn or they just "went out to take a piss".
Casual attitude (characteristic to creation of 99% of all WWW
functionality in the form of applets, servlets, CGI programs,
etc.) will often get one nowhere in C++.

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
mjm
"Victor Bazarov"

I did not say I wrote tons of Java code that worked right away.
I said it happened occasionally.
It's never happened in C++.

Stroustrup is not concise enough.
How long did it take you to work through this?
Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...
[...]
Stroustrup is not concise enough.
What's your example of 'concise'?
How long did it take you to work through this?


IIRC, about three months. It was a translation of the first
edition with some errors in examples, too. If I had to do
it in a foreign language and with a later edition, I may have
needed more time.

Considering that a decent C++ course should run two semesters,
I think that Stroustrup's Special Edition is the right book.
It doesn't have all answers, that's why it needs to be
complemented by, say, "The C++ Templates". The main advantage
of both books is that they can just as easily serve later as
references.

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
mjm
Victor Barazov,

I am not exeggerating. I have used the debugger when I started out in
C++ on Code Warrior and not thereafter neither for Java nor for C++.

cerr << ...

was good enough till now.
Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Agent Mulder" <mb*******************@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bf**********@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>...
Eljah> Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
Eljah> language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
Eljah> BASIC?
Eljah>
Eljah> Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

Go to your local second hand bookstore and find the books
on Java and C++. You'll probably find lots of both of them.
Decide on the language by the documentation that you can get.
It is not easy to recognize a good book but some general
guidelines are:

-good books are heavy books
-good books have a good index
-good books have a good Table of Contents at the start (except
for Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ Programming Language, that has a
lousy Table of Content. There is also something with the backside
of it that I must always look twice to find it. But the weight will tell
me I'm right)

Some Java books have a CD-ROM in the back with a compiler and
tools that you need to start programming. If you plan to jump in quickly
with a high level object oriented language, I'd advice Java. With C++,
you'll have to go through a lot of grunch. But it pays of.

-X


Well im 15 and ive been attempting to learn C++ for years now. My
main reason for learning it was to make games. I know a lil bit about
java and for a while i was going to learn it. but anyway, i think u
should learn C++ (or maybe C) and then go to java.

-zer0rez
Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]
I think that Stroustrup's Special Edition is the right book.
Oh yeah.

http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...21EB3%40web.de
(Subject: Re: How to define a map with "non-standard" key)
It doesn't have all answers, that's why it needs to be
complemented by, say, "The C++ Templates". ...


Sure. It should have helped you. Apparently, it didn't work in your
case for some reason.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
> Peter, I think some emotions (perhaps rubbing off from earlier in
the thread) make you jump to conclusions.
Frankly I see nothing is this thread, or even in this entire newsgroup
to get emotional about, but thank you for your concern.
I asked the question.
Why do you need to see some kind of a hidden agenda behind it?
Why do you think it's an attempt to censor anything or a statement
against anything?
To me, your posting looked more like a allergic response. Sentences like
"If you know Java so much better, what are you doing here?" and "You
advocate using Java in a C++ newsgroup." suggest to me that there is
apparently something inappropriate about suggesting Java might be better
for the OP in a C++ newsgroup. Apparently I was wrong, my apologies.
I am in no way against Java or any other language. However, bold
statements indicating superiority of anything over something else,
which usually aren't or cannot be substantiated, lead to agitated
state of the participants of the discussion.
'mjm' did provide (sometimes invalid or at least way to general)
arguments why he believes Java is a better choice for the OP. Again I
don't agree with his assessment, but that does not necessarily make his
posting inappropriate.
If that (agitation)
is _not_ the intention, some kind of calming interruption is needed.
Your postings here are generally good, accurate and usefull for the OP.
But IMHO of all the qualities your postings have, being "calming" is
usually not one of them. On the other end of the cable they appear
sometimes to be a bit harsh.
I simply asked the question to see if 'mjm' had anything to say
that would clear him/her of my suspicion.
Yes, I suspect that 'mjm' is trolling (wilfully or not). But I
can be mistaken and that's why I've asked the question.
If you really think that 'mjm' is trolling, my advice would be don't
feed the troll. If he would be trolling, I would expect him to be the
starter of the thread or at least make a crossposting to one of the
comp.lang.java.* groups. Personally I think 'mjm' is just a Java
programmer struggling with C++, blaming his own inadequacies on the
language.
Take a deep breath. Count to ten. There is no need to jump on
anyone's throat. Yet.


Maybe you should listen to your own advice as well.

Enough said about this...

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

Jul 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
mjm
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message news:<UKySa.106772$Ph3.13452@sccrnsc04>...
What's your example of 'concise'?


I liked Flanagan's Java in a nutshell. The scope is much more limited
but it is very short and fairly complete.

I have a negative view of Stroustrup. The facts are diffuse, spread
all over the place and important topics are not treated exhaustively
in one place.
In addition to that there does not seem to be any desire to elucidate
what abstract principle or quality any given language construct aims
to express.
For example Barton-Nachman do this with EVERY major language
construct.

Some examples of what I could not find:

I could not find a definitive comparison of the notion of a variable
to that of a reference. If you just read the index for the key
"variable":

variable:
constructor for global 252
constructor for local 245
global 200, 228
number of argument 154
temporary 244, 254

There does not seem to be a place where the basic notion of a variable
itself
is treated. On page 200 and 228 there is no elucidation on the notion
of a variable. It is not worth my while to turn to page 244 or 254.
Elaboration on const member functions: page 229 (the anniversary
addition, only item about const member functions in the index).
Explanation by trivial example, there is not even an attempt to
formulate a definition of what a const member function is ("note the
keyword const, the function does not change the onbject") No
elaboration on such question such as

Can a const member function call a nonconst one as long as it does not
modify the object? Can a const member function return a nonconst
reference to data?

This is grossly inadequate. Maybe all these questions are answered
somewhere in the book but topics of that importance need to be treated
exhaustively in one location.

Nested classes: p293 (only reference in the index). There is only an
example. No features are elucidated. Reading this in reference to
nested class is totally useless and should not be included in the
index.

Some questions are treated under the heading of "member class" in the
appendix on page 852. Ie. no access either way but you can grant
access to the enclosing class by declaring the nested class a friend
of the enclosing class.

So, can the constructor of the member class then use data from the
enclosing class? Ie. construction of the member class would be tied to
an object of the enclosing class:

obj.new nested(i);

No elaboration. I am sure you can answer all that drawing on the
totality of the diffuse knowledge presented in this book. But not
posing and answering these questions in a treatise of 1000 pages is a
deficiency.

C++ distilled by Ira Pohl is articulated much better. I think this
author is one to consider.
Jul 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
"mjm" <sp*******@yahoo.com> wrote...
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message news:<UKySa.106772$Ph3.13452@sccrnsc04>...
What's your example of 'concise'?
I liked Flanagan's Java in a nutshell. The scope is much more limited
but it is very short and fairly complete.


Perhaps "C++ in a nutshell" would be similar to what you're looking
for. Stroustrup is definitely not that.
I have a negative view of Stroustrup. The facts are diffuse, spread
all over the place and important topics are not treated exhaustively
in one place.
In addition to that there does not seem to be any desire to elucidate
what abstract principle or quality any given language construct aims
to express.
For example Barton-Nachman do this with EVERY major language
construct.

Some examples of what I could not find:
BTW, what edition are we talking about?
I could not find a definitive comparison of the notion of a variable
to that of a reference. If you just read the index for the key
"variable":

variable:
constructor for global 252
constructor for local 245
global 200, 228
number of argument 154
temporary 244, 254

There does not seem to be a place where the basic notion of a variable
itself
is treated. On page 200 and 228 there is no elucidation on the notion
of a variable. It is not worth my while to turn to page 244 or 254.
"Variable" is one of the base concepts of programming. "TC++PL" is
not supposed to teach programming, only the language. If you take
TC++PL without knowing what "a variable" is, I say, you're not ready
for it.
Elaboration on const member functions: page 229 (the anniversary
addition, only item about const member functions in the index).
Explanation by trivial example, there is not even an attempt to
formulate a definition of what a const member function is ("note the
keyword const, the function does not change the onbject") No
elaboration on such question such as

Can a const member function call a nonconst one as long as it does not
modify the object? Can a const member function return a nonconst
reference to data?
Have you really seen any book that is able to answer _any_ questions
that happen to come to the reader's mind?

If you still need answers to those questions, here they are: no and no.
Both involve conversions that are not allowed implicitly.
This is grossly inadequate.
"Grossly", huh?
Maybe all these questions are answered
somewhere in the book but topics of that importance need to be treated
exhaustively in one location.
I see you have a good understanding what is important to have in
a book. I say you should attempt writing your own.
Nested classes: p293 (only reference in the index). There is only an
example. No features are elucidated. Reading this in reference to
nested class is totally useless and should not be included in the
index.
Index should not be the first place you open when reading a book.
You should attempt reading the book in its normal order or in the
order the author suggests in the preface.
Some questions are treated under the heading of "member class" in the
appendix on page 852. Ie. no access either way but you can grant
access to the enclosing class by declaring the nested class a friend
of the enclosing class.

So, can the constructor of the member class then use data from the
enclosing class? Ie. construction of the member class would be tied to
an object of the enclosing class:

obj.new nested(i);

No elaboration.
You're trying to apply Java concepts to C++. You apparently need
a book "C++ for Java programmers". A person without prejudice should
not have a problem with nested types. Nesting of types does not
presume nesting of objects (unlike in Java). Once you abstract from
what you know in Java and try simply learning C++, you might actually
do better with Stroustrup. Unless you don't have to make an effort,
of course.
I am sure you can answer all that drawing on the
totality of the diffuse knowledge presented in this book. But not
posing and answering these questions in a treatise of 1000 pages is a
deficiency.
Trying to answer them would add more 1000s of pages to that book.
Just imagine looking at a book 3-4 thousands of pages thick. Do you
think you would buy it? Do you think you'd treat it as a normal book
or would you again try to use it as a tome of encyclopaedia, starting
with the Index?
C++ distilled by Ira Pohl is articulated much better. I think this
author is one to consider.


Good. So, you will use Ira Pohl's book. That's why there are more
than two books published on the subject.

One thing I think is important to understand. No book can cover all
topics pertaining to such huge and complex set of concepts and rules
like C++ language to everybody's satisfaction. The Special Edition
already has more than 1000 pages and would probably still not satisfy
such picky critic as yourself. Combine "TC++PL", "C++ Templates",
"C++ Standard Library", "Standard C++ Streams", "Design and Evolution
of C++", "Advanced C++", "Modern C++ Design", "Effective" series,
"Exceptional" series, "Large-Scale C++ Software Design" and you would
probably come close to covering 50% of all the questions you might
have. And we haven't even begun talking platform-specific nonsense.

Perhaps you thought C++ would be easy, once you learned Java. You
grabbed the first book that you heard of, the one that started it all,
and went for the index to see how the syntax is different from Java
so that you could quickly rewrite what you have into C++ and be done
with it. Oops, it doesn't even have those concepts you were used to
while doing some Web server development. And, instead of scrapping
your previous approach and starting with the clean slate, you throw
the book away with disgust and a label of "inadequacy". However, as
shown by countless examples over the past fifteen years, other
programmers successfully used that book to learn the language and
never complained. I am not going to answer it, but a question is
nagging: who's inadequate?

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #34

P: n/a

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message news:vh************@corp.supernews.com...

Perhaps "C++ in a nutshell" would be similar to what you're looking
for. Stroustrup is definitely not that.


C++ in a Nutshell has only come out in the past few months or so. It's
roughly along likes of the old ARM (only attempts to be up-to-date with
the latest standard).

I don't use Stroustrup anymore. It's a good book for the concepts, but I hardly
use it as a reference. I pretty much use the standard itself these days and
the two Jostutits books otherwise.

Jul 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message >
I only put Stroustrup to rest about three years ago, eight years
after first opening it.
We are in 2003, three years ago must have been 2000, eight years
before that must have been something like 1992 - five years before the
current edition was written and five years before we had the final
text of the standard (in 1997).

Actually, the most recent printings of TC++PL3 reflect the 2003
revisions to the standard (fortunately, those are minor).

Yes, the Standard is good enough as a reference to what language contains.
For people who already understand the major programming techniques and
have a reasonable level of professionalism, that's obviously the case.
That's why we wrote the standard. However, it seems to me that many
programmers still suffer misconceptions such as "C++ is C with a few
features added" or "C++ is a somewhat odd object-oriented language".
Both views miss the point badly (leading to ugly, inefficient, and
hanrd-to-maintain code) and very few people would be dissuaded from
their misconceptions by the standard (or by any manual). My impression
is that a large number of people still think that all they need is a
manual/reference/standard.

Books are still needed
to explain the Standard and to provide idioms and patterns,
which are usually missing from references.


Yes, and the underlying assumptions and fundamental programming
concepts tend to be missing also.

To understand a language is to understand the programming techniques
it supports and how it supports them. A manual/reference describe only
the latter, and typically in a bottom up manner.

- Bjarne Stroustrup, www.research.att.com/~bs
Jul 19 '05 #36

P: n/a
"Bjarne Stroustrup" <bs@research.att.com> wrote...
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message >
I only put Stroustrup to rest about three years ago, eight years
after first opening it.
We are in 2003, three years ago must have been 2000, eight years
before that must have been something like 1992 - five years before the
current edition was written and five years before we had the final
text of the standard (in 1997).


You better believe it. If I'm not mistaken, I have three editions
-- the first in Russian, then the second and the special in English.
The fact that I don't pick it up for my daily excursions into C++
doesn't mean it lost its attractiveness in general. It just means
that I feel I've outgrown it. Perhaps that feeling is temporary.
Actually, the most recent printings of TC++PL3 reflect the 2003
revisions to the standard (fortunately, those are minor).
And I am sure those are going to be useful to many more programmers
when they decide to set aside some time to study the language.
Yes, the Standard is good enough as a reference to what language

contains.
For people who already understand the major programming techniques and
have a reasonable level of professionalism, that's obviously the case.
That's why we wrote the standard.
You know what's missing, though? A book on rationales used to put
the Standard together and subsequent discussions on defects and
corrections/additions. Yes, I know of D&E, but it's old and is not
as detailed as I'd like to see such a book. Or, could it be there
is already such a creation and I'm the last one to know about it?
However, it seems to me that many
programmers still suffer misconceptions such as "C++ is C with a few
features added" or "C++ is a somewhat odd object-oriented language".
Both views miss the point badly (leading to ugly, inefficient, and
hanrd-to-maintain code) and very few people would be dissuaded from
their misconceptions by the standard (or by any manual). My impression
is that a large number of people still think that all they need is a
manual/reference/standard.


Well, at some point, I believe, every professional switches from
textbooks to references and codes/standards. What is rather sad
is that some programmers coming from another language believe that
all they need to know is syntax for the constructs they've learned
already. With existing fundamental differences between programming
languages, such approach is, how should I put it?, reactionary, and
unfortunately detrimental to the learning process. Instead of
adding wisdom, expanding the horizon, the new knowledge seems
contradicting to what they've learned to be good practices or only
ways to achieve certain goals. Disappointment follows.

Is there a way to prevent that? It seems that when it happens, the
only way to put them on the right track is to add more trauma by
showing that they've been following the wrong path, which inevitably
produces more negative reaction, denial, antagonism, etc. Have you
noticed something like that? Do you have any suggestions to help us
help them to overcome certain deficiencies in the learning process?
Does it help to be closer to those who are learning intensively,
there at TAMU?

In any way, thank you for participating, I am sure the readers here
appreciate your time.

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
"Agent Mulder" <mb*******************@home.nl> writes:
Eljah> Are there any recommended books on Java or C++ (depending on which
Eljah> language I should learn first) for the beginner who only know PHP and
Eljah> BASIC?
Eljah>
Eljah> Sorry if this post some how offends somebody.

Go to your local second hand bookstore and find the books
on Java and C++. You'll probably find lots of both of them.
Decide on the language by the documentation that you can get.
It is not easy to recognize a good book but some general
guidelines are:

-good books are heavy books


That's so untrue, some of the best books I ever read are small & lightweight
("Accelerated C++", "The Pragmatic Programmer", ...), and most of the
computer / programming books with 1000+ pages are simply crap.

regards
frank

--
Frank Schmitt
4SC AG phone: +49 89 700763-0
e-mail: frank DOT schmitt AT 4sc DOT com
Jul 19 '05 #38

P: n/a

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
[...]
To understand a language is to understand the programming techniques
it supports and how it supports them.


AFAICS, C++ doesn't support things like: (see TC++PL)

void g(priority_queue<string,String_cmp>& pq)
{
priority_queue<string> pq2(String_cmp(nocase));
pq = pq2; // ok: pq and pq2 are of the same type, pq now also uses String_cmp(nocase)
}

Or am I just missing (e.g. some errata) and/or misunderstanding something?

regards,
alexander.
Jul 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
mjm
"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@attAbi.com> wrote in message
Attacking Stroustrup is somewhat of a blasphemy. The book is a
monumental work
I understand this completely.
BTW, what edition are we talking about?


I am talking about the anniversary addition. This addition comes with
a tasteful white cover. Everything is in flawless Greek proportion.
Width, height and thickness of the book, the size of the letters, the
size of the cover everything.

The cover design is highly artistic. The letters are dark blue and
golden yellow. There is a picture of a wave breaking in an interesting
pattern. In the foreground are the impressive letters

C++

three dimensional and in translucent greenish yellow.
Bound into the book are two clothen bookmarks in blue and golden
yellow.
The paper, printing and page layout are all of the highest quality.

This is the very finest in book binding, the best that Addison Wesley
has to offer flawlessly delivered. This book does not go on your
bookshelf, it goes into a glass display stand on blue velvet.

Victor,

I feel that you are a man which must own a copy of this edition -- my
copy.
In full appreciation of its significance I have always kept it in a
separate
special drawer and in consequence it is in mint condition.
Email me and I will make you an offer you cannot refuse.
Jul 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
"Paul Dubuc" <pd****@cas.org> wrote in message
news:3F**************@cas.org...
http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs03...+tutorial.html


The "Books and References" section I see these words:

<<The C++ Programming Language,
by Bjarne Stroustrup (3rd Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1997)

Bjarne Stroustrup is the creator of the C++ programming language,
and this book is the reference that he has written. It is a good
reference book, but not one you would sit down and read to learn
the language. (There is a copy of this book in the Sunlab.)>>

I think the text of this comment needs adjustment. It should say
"It is a good reference book, but not one _I_ would sit down and..."
Whoever wrote this should speak for himself. I learned the language
from that book, and I am not alone.

Also, I strongly recommend the authors of this "tutorial" to visit
www.accu.org, the book review section. Major advances have been
made in the field of sharing the knowledge in book form since this
was created. I do not see recommendations for "The C++ Standard
Library" or for "C++ Templates". A gross miss, IMO.

Further inspection of this "tutorial" shows "pearls" like this:
<<Useless trivia: The order in which the instance variables are
initialized is not the order in which they appear in the
initializer list, but instead the order in which they are listed
in the class declaration.>>

My question is: why is this called "useless"?

IOW, I already think this "tutorial" is useless. No need to look
any further.

Victor
Jul 19 '05 #42

P: n/a

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]
I think the text of this comment needs adjustment. It should say
"It is a good reference book, but not one _I_ would sit down and..."
Whoever wrote this should speak for himself. I learned the language
from that book, and I am not alone.
All statements are opinions, my fixated friend. Uhmm,

http://www.accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvo...file=cp003311a

also needs adjustment, I guess.

"This book will help ME achieve that latter objective while educating
ME about general framework design. "

ACE sucks, BTW.

Also, I strongly recommend the authors of this "tutorial" to visit
www.accu.org, the book review section. Major advances have been
Oh yeah. Francis is close to the establish "1K-computer-book" record.

[...] IOW, I already think this "tutorial" is useless. No need to look
any further.


Hey Bazarov-the-reviewer, you forget to plonk the URL.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 19 '05 #43

P: n/a


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
S/he means that this group is full of big assholes. S/he is correct.

Al, don't be so hard on yourself! Who luvs ya baby?


Brian Rodenborn
Jul 19 '05 #44

P: n/a


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Al, don't be so hard on yourself!


I can live with it. Sublimation, you know.

From the sublime to the ridiculous. Happens all the time.

Brian Rodenborn
Jul 19 '05 #45

P: n/a
I disagree. I think learning C first is a good idea if you're
planning to master procedural programming. Not saying, it's bad, but
in my own experience, you can get ahead better with a solid
understanding of OOP. I believe it's better to get good at OOP with a
language such as Java or Python and then move on to things like C++ to
be able to write fast applications (GUI, games, complex number
crunching).

"vijay" <ge********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bf**********@news.mch.sbs.de>...
learning C++ is best done aftee u learn c thoroughly
Because u wud be able to make a differece between language specific
syntactical info(in C) and object oriented concepts of C++
Once u learn language syntax in C thorughly , when u start learning C++ u
wud be able to apprciate the OOPS concepts in C++,

Java since its made a platform independent it will be too heavy on u if u
are not sure of basic concepts of a high level language ,

My advice is start with a simple c book, learn to program, then open
Kennigham and ritche's C BOOK, which is like Bible of C, and learn the
language
After that use Stanley Lipmann's Primer C++ .

U can as well lean Java basics along with Primer C++ as most of the concepts
are similar,

Vijay

Jul 19 '05 #46

P: n/a
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:02:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov
<te******@web.de> wrote:

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
[...]
To understand a language is to understand the programming techniques
it supports and how it supports them.
AFAICS, C++ doesn't support things like: (see TC++PL)

void g(priority_queue<string,String_cmp>& pq)
{
priority_queue<string> pq2(String_cmp(nocase));


presumably:
priority_queue<string,String_cmp> pq2(String_cmp(nocase));
pq = pq2; // ok: pq and pq2 are of the same type, pq now also uses String_cmp(nocase)
}

Or am I just missing (e.g. some errata) and/or misunderstanding something?


What's wrong with the code fragment (apart from the typo)? It empties
the passed priority queue and gives it String_cmp(nocase) as its
predicate.

Tom
Jul 19 '05 #47

P: n/a

tom_usenet wrote:
[...]
AFAICS, C++ doesn't support things like: (see TC++PL)

void g(priority_queue<string,String_cmp>& pq)
{
priority_queue<string> pq2(String_cmp(nocase));
presumably:
priority_queue<string,String_cmp> pq2(String_cmp(nocase));


Yep.
pq = pq2; // ok: pq and pq2 are of the same type, pq now also uses String_cmp(nocase)
}

Or am I just missing (e.g. some errata) and/or misunderstanding something?


What's wrong with the code fragment (apart from the typo)?


Uhmm. Based on the TC++PL quotation below, I tend to clasify it as a
thinko ("ala Bazarov"; see the context from there it all comes from),
not typo.

<quote>

map<string,int> m1;
map<string,int,Nocase> m2; // specify comparison type (17.1.4.1)
map<string,int,String_cmp> m3; // specify comparison type (17.1.4.1)
map<string,int> m4(String_cmp(literary)); // pass comparison object

</quote>

I may be missing and/or misunderstanding something, of course.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Hey Bazarov, "great minds think alike", oder? ;-)
Jul 19 '05 #48

P: n/a
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:27:20 +0200, Alexander Terekhov
<te******@web.de> wrote:
What's wrong with the code fragment (apart from the typo)?


Uhmm. Based on the TC++PL quotation below, I tend to clasify it as a
thinko ("ala Bazarov"; see the context from there it all comes from),
not typo.

<quote>

map<string,int> m1;
map<string,int,Nocase> m2; // specify comparison type (17.1.4.1)
map<string,int,String_cmp> m3; // specify comparison type (17.1.4.1)
map<string,int> m4(String_cmp(literary)); // pass comparison object

</quote>

I may be missing and/or misunderstanding something, of course.


If he makes the same mistake twice in different contexts, it seems
like he's expecting template argument deduction of a type from
arguments passed to the constructor or something. A thinko, as you
say!

Tom
Jul 19 '05 #49

P: n/a

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
[...]
You can find the errata on my home pages,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd_printing6.html (m4)
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd_printing7.html (Pqueue)
but if you have an early
edition, it might be worth upgrading. The latest printing is the 18th.


I have the 3rd edition pdf(s) [1st printing, I guess] from the IBM
Visual Age C/C++. Uhmm, perhaps you can provide a patch, oder? ;-)

regards,
alexander.

--
"If Unix were a car, they said, SCO Unix was like a driving motorized
wheelbarrow through a mosquito-infested swamp naked with both hands
tied behind your back."

-- http://www.humorix.org/articles/may03/sco.shtml
Jul 19 '05 #50

55 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.