Confession: I never did ASM

On Sep 30, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Chad P. wrote:

Programming Language (K&R) is a classic and well worth the read.
"K&R
CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Rudy Giuliani: “You have free speech so I can be heard.”

there are unfortunately far too many of those “K&R is all you need”
types out there.
Oualine’s book is excellent. It doesn’t cover everything, but he’s a
good writer. (rare in C books)

My two cents, in general the OREILLY Cookbooks are good places to
learn and get ideas on how to do stuff. Many of the snippets and
solutions in them are from different people in one place.
You don’t need only the Ruby / Rails ones either!
The PHP Cookbook is quite a good one for reference on web programming
concepts.
The Perl and Python cookbooks are of course good.
All of that series is well worth it, and many things are easily
adaptable from one language to another.

Same goes for those looking int Qt or Tk libraries. The books on
these are usually good, but it’s all in C or C++ usually, so you will
have to adapt it to use with Ruby, but still useful.

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:29:34AM +0900, Michael Bevilacqua-Linn wrote:

Programming From The Ground Up - An Introduction to Programming using Linux
Assembly Language is quite good.

But if you’re looking to start programming in C, why not just start
programming in C?

I’ve always liked the O’Reilly Practical C book and, of course, The C
Programming Language (K&R) is a classic and well worth the read. And I seem
to have lost my copy :-/

By “the O’Reilly Practical C book” – do you mean “Practical C
Programming” by Steve Oualline? I just got that book a month or two
ago,
and haven’t had much time to get into it, but it looks good so far.
Some
people I’ve talked to about it didn’t seem to think much of it, but
they’re developing a new open source C compiler and seem to be the “K&R
is all you need” type, so I figure I should probably take their opinion
of it with a grain of salt. If anyone else has any thoughts, though,
I’d
be happy to hear them (especially if those thoughts involve some
specific
things to watch out for while I’m reading the book so I won’t be led
astray).

Michael Bevilacqua-Linn wrote:

MBL

IMHO, the Waite Group’s “New C Primer Plus” does quite an excellent job
of taking you into C from nowhere. It’s perhaps not the best book (I
haven’t read Practical C) but it was one of the early books I read and
I’ve been quite impressed right since then.

Cheers,
Mohit.
10/2/2007 | 3:45 PM.

On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Mohit S. wrote:

And I seem
Cheers,
Mohit.
10/2/2007 | 3:45 PM.

C all-in-one for dummies is the most gentle intro, and is fairly up
to date, good read.
C Primer Plus by Steven Prata is very good. It is a bit more on the
dry reading side though.

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

While that is true, I still there are better books for learners starting
out on C. I think the beauty of K&R is appreciated after you understand
C enough.

Cheers,
Mohit.
10/2/2007 | 3:33 PM.

John J. wrote:

C all-in-one for dummies is the most gentle intro, and is fairly up to
date, good read.
C Primer Plus by Steven Prata is very good. It is a bit more on the dry
reading side though.

Actually, the best C book is probably “Head First Java”.

Seriously, though, the Waite Group book is pretty good. But there really
should be a “Head First C” or something like it. The C language is
something we take for granted, and I think that’s bad.

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:30:43PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Seriously, though, the Waite Group book is pretty good. But there really
should be a “Head First C” or something like it. The C language is
something we take for granted, and I think that’s bad.

I haven’t really found the “Head First” books all that effective. My
SigO refers to them as “the bubble books” for reasons similar to my own
lack of high regard for them. Maybe we’ve just been unlucky enough to
pick the wrong “Head First” books to evaluate.

On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:30 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Seriously, though, the Waite Group book is pretty good. But there
really should be a “Head First C” or something like it. The C
language is something we take for granted, and I think that’s bad.

Agreed on the taking for granted. Apparently there just isn’t enough
demand for good/new C books out there. Too bad, because it’s a
language that is NOT going away and is as important as ever.
I’m not personally a fan of the Head First series at all. I always
look at them and having been a teacher, I know that they are good for
some people with different learning styles, but they just don’t work
for me.
Personally, I’d like to see more computer books leave less white
space. They’re not novels. It’s always interesting to see the same
books translated into Japanese, and the Japanese version is still
good and has much better formatting and layout with color at a
cheaper price and a far more manageable physical size. (not the Bell
Telephone directory size)

I haven’t really found the “Head First” books all that effective. My
SigO refers to them as “the bubble books” for reasons similar to my
own
lack of high regard for them. Maybe we’ve just been unlucky enough to
pick the wrong “Head First” books to evaluate.

I haven’t personally found the Head First books to be good for me,
but I have met tons of people who do recommend the Head First Java
book. So it must be good for some people. Kinda like how _why’s book
is good to some ( I like it) and annoying to others…?

John J. wrote:

Yeah … I read reference books for relaxation so I’m not fond of the
Head First books except for “Java” and “Design Patterns”. :slight_smile:

On Sep 29, 3:27 pm, John J. [email protected]
wrote:

K&R is that it is not a beginner’s introduction to C.
Bzzzt… wrong answer. And who are you referring to with “we”? You’re
certainly not speaking for any programmers who have mastered C that I
know of.

Before going
into data structures or algorithms in K&R, it is important to first
get a grasp of the C language.

Name one book that is superior to K&R for learning the C programming
language.

Unfortunately, not all of the stuff in K&R is applicable to Ruby. You
can try to write C or C++ style in Ruby

Why would you want to do that?

John J. wrote:

K&R is not a sacred religious text and C is not a religion.
But, that’s an unfortunately common attitude among C forums though…

I’d say K&R is pretty close to a sacred religious text. Certainly K&R is
a lot closer to a sacred text than a lot of other programming language
books out there. The only others I can recall that even come close are
the Lisp 1.5 manual, “Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs”, and the Clocksin - Mellish Prolog book.

On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:35 PM, Brian A. wrote:

Trolling for arguments? Most things are just tactful discussions here.

Programmers who have mastered C?
Sure they’ll find K&R useful.
Sure it is the goto book for C.
Sure it’s loaded with useful stuff!
Obviously you’re protective of it and enamored with it, but get over it.
It is terse and not the best introduction to C for people who new to
programming or who are new to a language like C. No matter how much
good material is in it, it doesn’t make it a good intro for everyone.

Programming Ruby is the goto book for Ruby, but it’s not appropriate
for everyone, it does assume prior programming experience. Though
Ruby is arguably easier to learn and work with than C, some people
are better served to start with something else like Beginning Ruby or
even Learning to Program.

AWDR is also the goto book for Rails, but it is not necessarily the
best for those who’ve never built a web application. Those people
might be better served by several other books, but eventually will
want to consult AWDR for more information.

Same goes for C. There is no magic book that is right for everyone.
Most people should get K&R if they do a lot of C, but it is certainly
possible to do good C without it! It’s not about superiority or
complete mastery. K&R is not a sacred religious text and C is not a
religion. But, that’s an unfortunately common attitude among C forums
though…

On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:39 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Ah, come on, man, what about Larry Wall’s camel?!
That’s like the Hunter S. Thompson of programming books! Eternal
classic.

John J. wrote:


Ah, come on, man, what about Larry Wall’s camel?!
That’s like the Hunter S. Thompson of programming books! Eternal classic.

One of the very few that is funny on purpose. (Witty, rather than
merely cute like the many lesser tech books that try to appear human.)


James B.

www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.risingtidesoftware.com - Wicked Cool Coding
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

Brian A. wrote:

On Sep 29, 3:27 pm, John J. [email protected]
wrote:

Before going
into data structures or algorithms in K&R, it is important to first
get a grasp of the C language.

Name one book that is superior to K&R for learning the C programming
language.
I learnt enough C to actually get useful stuff done with the Dummies
books, but I didn’t actually understand a lot of it until I got myself
a copy of K&R. I guess it depends on what sort of learning you’re
interested in.

John J. wrote:

close are the Lisp 1.5 manual, “Structure and Interpretation of
Computer Programs”, and the Clocksin - Mellish Prolog book.

Ah, come on, man, what about Larry Wall’s camel?!
That’s like the Hunter S. Thompson of programming books! Eternal classic.

Yeah, except that Randal Schwartz’ Perl book is much more sacred – is
that the Llama book??

On Oct 3, 9:12 am, “Rick DeNatale” [email protected] wrote:

On 10/3/07, Alex Y. [email protected] wrote:

Name one book that is superior to K&R for learning the C programming
language.

Harbison and Steele.

Interesting. I’m not familiar with that one, but I have a lot of
respect for Guy Steele. I haven’t done any serious C/C++ programming
since 1996, but I’d like to experiment with some C extensions for
Ruby, so I’ll probably upgrade my 1978 K&R to the more recent ANSI
version, but I’ll take a look at Harbison & Steele. K&R only grew from
228p to 274p. between 1978-1988. I’m curious what the doubly sized H&S
adds to it. More library information maybe?

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:58:12PM +0900, Alex Y. wrote:

I learnt enough C to actually get useful stuff done with the Dummies
books, but I didn’t actually understand a lot of it until I got myself
a copy of K&R. I guess it depends on what sort of learning you’re
interested in.

I wonder if the fact you had already learned C from another (easier)
book
made a difference for how effectively you could pick up concepts from
K&R when you got around to reading it.

On 10/3/07, Alex Y. [email protected] wrote:

Name one book that is superior to K&R for learning the C programming
language.

Harbison and Steele.


Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs