PDA

View Full Version : C++ youtube video



kypronite
08-14-2008, 09:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE6E58F856038C69

hehe it's pretty weird.When I'm in class,I can't wait till it's over but now I really miss those boring lectures,classroom,etc...

Luciferek
08-14-2008, 11:22 AM
Yep...
reminescing over the good ole college days...
I only wish my proffessors weren't nazis.

Sebastiani
08-14-2008, 11:25 AM
just for the record, this really should have been posted to the General Discussions board...

laserlight
08-14-2008, 11:30 AM
Moved to General Discussions.

Stonehambey
08-14-2008, 11:35 AM
Interesting link, thanks for sharing :)

indigo0086
08-14-2008, 11:39 AM
Screw your i++. I USE ++i!

BobMcGee123
08-14-2008, 05:05 PM
i refuse to visit a site that calls me a tube.



AND WTF IS C++?!@

But it's cool that they post their lectures.

VirtualAce
08-14-2008, 06:45 PM
Wow that lady needs to take a breather. She sounds winded like she just ran a marathon.

SlyMaelstrom
08-14-2008, 07:59 PM
MIT also does this on their website. Courses ranging from programming, engineering, physics... It's very nice.

kypronite
08-14-2008, 08:02 PM
There's also other video on programming uploaded by stanford university

programming methodology
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=84A56BC7F4A1F852

programming paradigm
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9D558D49CA734A02

twomers
08-15-2008, 11:21 AM
vector.h... I dunno gravy.

Stonehambey
08-15-2008, 01:36 PM
I wonder why the course chooses to use their own container classes, surely it would be more useful for the students to become familiar with the standard C++ ones??:confused:

BobMcGee123
08-15-2008, 01:40 PM
Do they show how to develop the container classes? I didn't watch enough to find out (maybe it's part of the exercise?)

VirtualAce
08-15-2008, 07:28 PM
I think they are teaching the fundamentals of the containers rather than the use of them. Teaching the STL would be more along the lines of how to use a container as opposed to the underlying implementation.

However a complete disregard for the STL even in higher level courses tells me that some students are wholly unprepared for the real world. I use the STL a lot at work because it reduces dev time and is efficient enough for my needs. It's obviously not the fastest thing in the world but it does get the job done and makes my life much easier.

whiteflags
08-15-2008, 08:19 PM
It's mentioned in that lecture that Stanford has a companion course to the one that lady teaches "if you really want to know C++". I imagine they work with the STL a lot in there, but since it's an elective, I couldn't estimate its popularity with the students.

laserlight
08-15-2008, 11:04 PM
It's mentioned in that lecture that Stanford has a companion course to the one that lady teaches "if you really want to know C++".
Could that be the week-long summer school course once taught by Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo as mentioned in Accelerated C++?

whiteflags
08-15-2008, 11:45 PM
As snarky as that reply was, I don't know.

The course number I believe was CIS 106L.

cpjust
08-16-2008, 12:21 AM
Oh oh. She said void main() is valid in C code. :rolleyes:

laserlight
08-16-2008, 12:44 AM
She said void main() is valid in C code.
As I recall, due to a defect in the C standard (http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/legality-of-void-main.html), she is technically correct, depending on the compiler.

cpjust
08-16-2008, 04:06 PM
The C Standard currently says that an implementation is free to define any additional forms for main that it cares to. 5.1.2.2.1.1 of the C Standard lists the allowable forms for the definition of main. Because of the semi-colon, its final sentence parses as follows:


It shall be defined
* with a return type of int and
- with no parameters [...] or
- with two parameters [...] or equivalent;
or
* in some other implementation-defined manner.
If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like it's saying that all compilers are required to support int main() and int main( int argc, char* argv[] ) but that's the bare minimum they need to support. They can of course also support their own extensions, in which case code becomes non-portable.

@nthony
08-18-2008, 07:54 PM
The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation declares no
prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a return type of int and with no
parameters:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any names may be
used, as they are local to the function in which they are declared):
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
or equivalent;9) or in some other implementation-defined manner.
Well C99 makes it pretty clear that the above definition would fall into "other"... if it was even a valid function signature, which it isn't... when will people learn: int main(void)

laserlight
08-18-2008, 11:05 PM
Well C99 makes it pretty clear that the above definition would fall into "other"... if it was even a valid function signature, which it isn't... when will people learn: int main(void)
You have forgotten that the void in the parameter list is only necessary for specifying that the function takes no arguments when declaring the function (prototype), not when defining the function. If you claim that C99 does not allow one to leave out the void, then I claim that the C99 standard is inconsistent:

int main()
{
size_t size;
size = fsize3(10); // fsize3 returns 13
return 0;
}
The above program is an example from ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Section 6.5.3.4. If what you say is true, then this is yet another defect in C99, and one that is repeated in the text of the Standard.

EDIT:
But of course, even if the void was required, if the author of that article is correct, then I do not see why int main() should not fall under "other", and just be not portable, as cpjust pointed out.