Kaz Kylheku wrote: > In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com>, > steve wrote: > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >--------------31D32D01009BB90DC2E214FF > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > > > >Peter Seebach wrote: > > > >> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>, > >> Judson McClendon wrote: > There is NO > >direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them > >out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a > >computer! > > I found C to be completely transparent and obvious, with a marvellous syntax. > That same year, I independently found a C programming job in which I developed > some DOS utilities that shipped. Just wait.... > Prior to that I came from a modest background consisting of Pascal, 6502 and > 8088 assembly language BASIC plus a little bit of Fortran 77 from a course I > took previously. Obviously, you weren't a beginner at programming! 8-) > >If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT > >because you figured it out by looking at it! > > I don't know about Seebs, but I had help from a great book by Kernighan and > Ritchie Same here! One of the smallest, yet most concise and respected, books ever written! If only they had similar books for the languages of today. Heck, It was almost a PAMPHLETT! I wouldn't have taken it so seriously if it wasn't so highly respected!It is ALSO an "OTHER SOURCE" like I alluded too. I doubt you would have hade the luck with the language without something like that. That isn't saying that you are lacking in intelligence, but that C is NOT immediately readable by anyone without SOME help. > . I had absolutely no problems sorting out the pointer and array > issues immediately; I still don't understand what the fuss is about. Well, I DID have some problems(although most WERE mistakes because I wasn't use to it), and many others do.