From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/19 Message-ID: <67d00a$bqc$1@brie.direct.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 308490793 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk> <67ccvl$iqj$1@darla.visi.com> <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com> Organization: Internet Direct Reply-To: kaz@cafe.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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: >> >C is a *horrible* first language! If you actually think learning C as a >> >first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds >> >somewhere, looking for home. You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know >> >anything else. Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were >> >the difficulty issue, is farcical! >> >> I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn. When I was a kid, I could >> read C, even though I never wrote any back then. It's *obvious*. >> > >Either you don't know C, have seen little of it, or forget when you actually >learned it. Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious! 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 learned C in two weeks sufficiently well to write an small interpreted language wht a flavor similar to PostScript---this was in my second year at university. The program consisted of some 13 modules or so, quite adequately divided according to abstract data types. I had a number of key types used inside the interpreter, and I used reference counts to know when a structure is or is not in use. The user of the program was able to select this driver by name using a command line option. The program had an abstract graphics driver architecture centered around a structure containing function pointers. I gave the architecture spec along with a header file to a more experienced programmer and he wrote me an XWindow driver that was able to display the graphics produced by the interpreted program; the ``standard'' driver output a matrix of text characters representing the raster display. 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. 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. >> >Many people have trouble abstracting their logic. >> >> Yes, and I doubt any of them will ever be successful or good programmers. > >But they MIGHT become good! Some ones that may be good might get scared by C! I think that people who have trouble abstracting their logic will make excellent C programmers. :) >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. I had absolutely no problems sorting out the pointer and array issues immediately; I still don't understand what the fuss is about.