Curiously enough though there's no distinct writing style on either this or C++ Programing Language's. Both books are absolutely transparent on what comes to show the writers style, and make an effort instead to be manuals of the C++ Programming Language.
If you see a difference, I commend you and must be certainly from the fact you carry a distinct advantage (or on this case, it appears, disadvantage) over me; your higher knowledge of the English language.
You can however say Stroustrup's book is clearly more terse. But, as said, it doesn't pretend to teach you how to program.
I guess it's me then. I started reading the book not too long ago, even though I know a good deal of C++, but I wanted to hear it from the mouth of the creator.
The problem with the book and I is that not only are the code examples a bit short while doing quite a bit at times (reminds me of my Unix programming teacher), but even if I were to use it as a reference, the language used is very verbose and detail laden where as I'm used to more concise and "to the point" ways of having things described (via a code example or a short description, with the details as a sidebar. I like to have a clear line between the "core" and the earmarks.
I also was reading it from start to finish which probably isn't a good Idea for a "tome" or "reference" book, but it is written in a way that it comes off as an instructional guide.
I don lyk da way Stroustrup rites cuz he is lyk a teechr xplane.
looking over c++0x's posts he seems to be a contributing member despite his horrendous delivery. I think he's being ironic. Maybe he's like rain man.
> Now I know why there is a www.noslang.com.
It doesn't do slang of his high-grade very well ;)
>It doesn't do slang of his high-grade very well
1am n0 1337 hax0r?