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: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/22 Message-ID: <882756277snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 309220685 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <349745D3.F4AA0460@seasoned-software.com> <34994D43.6858@ici.net> <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk> <67ccvl$iqj$1@darla.visi.com> <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com> X-Mail2News-User: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 882760476 19668 fred genesis.demon.co.uk Organization: none Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com> steve@seasoned-software.com "steve" writes: >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. The primary(?) moderator of comp.lang.c.moderated does (I can conform) know the language quite well and I suspect that he has seen a fair amount of it. He is also a member of the standards committee (although they seem to let any old riffraff in there! :-) ) > Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious! IMHO they are when reading code to get an idea of what it does. You have to know a bit more about then to write code. > 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! If you have some code that uses them it shouldn't take too long to work out what they do. ... >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 see why not. I learnt to read 386 assembly well enough by simply looking at compiler output. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------