Maximum Age for C++ Book

[Scott Brady Drummonds]

Hi, everyone,

I'm working with a coworker on trying to ramp him up with C++. He currently
owns (and is using) a book that is seven or eight years old. I know that
the ARM was published well before that, but I cannot say if a book that old
can be completely up-to-date.

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using
it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

Thanks,
Scott

--
Remove ".nospam" from the user ID in my e-mail to reply via e-mail.

[Mike Wahler]

"Scott Brady Drummonds" <sc**********************@intel.com> wrote in
message news:bo**********@news01.intel.com...

Hi, everyone,

I'm working with a coworker on trying to ramp him up with C++. He currently owns (and is using) a book that is seven or eight years old. I know that
the ARM was published well before that, but I cannot say if a book that old can be completely up-to-date.

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

The C++ language was standardized in 1998, so any books
written much prior to that will be 'obsolete' as regards
standard C++. The latest editions (third and 'special')
of Stroustrup do reflect standard C++.

-Mike

[Janusz Szpilewski]

Scott Brady Drummonds wrote:

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using
it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

Depends on the book. Some of them are timeless like "Advanced C++" (1992
) by James Coplien. Some other ones like the classics written by
Stroustrup or Lippman are still useful but they have updated editions
now. You would still need another source to learn about the standard
library and the latest language extensions (like the Josuttis' "The C++
Standard Library").

One important thing to note is that the language was standardized in
1998. However the main changes concerned extending the standard library
so most of the things described in older (but respectable) books still
apply.
Regards,
Janusz

[Bjarne Stroustrup]

"Scott Brady Drummonds" <sc**********************@intel.com> wrote in message news:<bo**********@news01.intel.com>...

Hi, everyone,

I'm working with a coworker on trying to ramp him up with C++. He currently
owns (and is using) a book that is seven or eight years old. I know that
the ARM was published well before that, but I cannot say if a book that old
can be completely up-to-date.

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using
it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

Thanks,
Scott

Anyone using C++ needs a book that reflects the standard. Except
possibly for books covering very specialized subjects that eliminates
books from before 1997 and most books before 2000.

However, maybe the publication date isn't the best indicator. Look to
see if the standard library has a central part in the book. If not,
it's "old style" and "pre-standard" whichever its publication year.
Take use of string, vector, map, find(), sort(), etc. early on in the
book as a good sign and their absence, late appearance, or cursory
description as a bad sign.

Also, have a look at www.accu.org for book reviews.

- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://wwwresearch.att.com/~bs

[Evan]

"Scott Brady Drummonds" <sc**********************@intel.com> wrote in message news:<bo**********@news01.intel.com>...

Hi, everyone,

I'm working with a coworker on trying to ramp him up with C++. He currently
owns (and is using) a book that is seven or eight years old. I know that
the ARM was published well before that, but I cannot say if a book that old
can be completely up-to-date.

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using
it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

Thanks,
Scott

As Mike said, the ANSI standard was only ratified about 5 years ago.
Any book written much before that is going to have *major* omissions,
and any book from around that time is at best probably only able to
speculate about the standard.

The C++ *language* has changed little since ARM. However, the
libraries included in the standard have. As evidence, look at even
some books published since the stardard; some still use the old style
(<iostream.h> etc.) headers. There have also been some big changes to
the STL. For instance default template arguments have made the syntax
nicer and expanded the abilities of some of the containers and such.

Evan

[jeffc]

"Scott Brady Drummonds" <sc**********************@intel.com> wrote in
message news:bo**********@news01.intel.com...

Hi, everyone,

I'm working with a coworker on trying to ramp him up with C++. He currently owns (and is using) a book that is seven or eight years old. I know that
the ARM was published well before that, but I cannot say if a book that old can be completely up-to-date.

Is there a maximum age for a C++ book that should be considered before using it for learning? Meaning, have there been any changes to the language in
the last several years that would necessitate the use of a book that was
younger than the changes?

The problem is finding a book that documents the standard to begin with. A
7 year old book might be better than a 1 year old book, actually, even if
we're talking about the most current standard. It's hard to say. Read the
book reviews on www.accu.org