scott wrote:
>> Anyway, again when I learned that dynamic binding is an extra feature 
>> that you have to manually tern on, I kind of lost interest. (Plus my 
>> head was spinning by the time I'd finished reading about the inner 
>> complexities of pointers vs references, copy constructors, etc.) I'm 
>> not sure if C++ really is this hard or whether the book was just badly 
>> written, but it sure did an efficient job of putting me off.
> 
> Sounds like it tried to cram in too much too soon

Well, it *is* named "learn C++ in 21 days". ;-)

> something is wrong if 
> you find yourself wondering about dynamic binding before you understand 
> what while(*a++=*b++); does!  YOu can get a very long way without ever 
> needing to know about dynamic binding or the detail of how copy 
> constructors work.

It did seem complex and unecessary. I kept asking myself "why the hell 
do I need to care about such things?" At the time, I assumed it was 
because C++ is badly designed. From what Warp has said, maybe it was 
just that the book was badly designed. It presented the information as 
being stuff that every beginner C++ programmer absolutely must know. 
 From the sound of it, that's not actually the case.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message