Thread: C++ Annotations

Originally Posted by manasij7479

>Instead of awkward C-style ...
If in an alternate universe.. C was somehow developed after C++... we'd see lines like.... "Instead of this uber complicated multiple inheritance which creates more problems than it solves.... C simply offers structs where you can certainly have pointers to other structs skipping all the unnecessary contraptions"

Rotfl. I could almost believe in that, "back to the future".

Seriously, tho, outside of the C++ world, I don't see a lot of programming material that constantly references another language in order to describe itself by contrast, wherein the author always seems compelled to throw in some (morale boosting?) subjective evaluations at the same time. It reminds me of talking with someone who keeps coming back around to, "My jerk of a father" no matter what the topic. Like, eventually you start to think this person has an unhealthy obsession.

But no big deal. Thanks again for the book tip, I probably have a lot to learn from it.

Originally Posted by MK27

Like, eventually you start to think this person has an unhealthy obsession.

Okay, example! In the CPP Annotations chapter on Exceptions, the author actually demonstrates "Anachronisms: `setjmp' and `longjmp'" as the C predecessor -- like with an example program and explanation. WTF? You don't need to know anything about setjmp and longjmp to understand C++ exceptions. Why the need to write a (bad) C program in order to explain technically unrelated C++ syntax?

Again, this seems par for the course in C++ literature. Methinks this creates programmers who learn C++, but never C, and pick up all kinds of wacky ideas about how cumbersome C is (using setjmp and longjmp is not "the C way" to throw errors, lol). Then maybe down the road they write a C++ book and think, "I guess I need some negated C examples to explain this...".

However, no one take that as a serious disparagement of the book. It is totally worth having a look.