Em 14/04/2012 12:23, Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
> This is the frankly laughable title of the book I'm currently borrowing.
>
> Sure, maybe you could learn BBC BASIC in 21 days. But C++? I doubt it.
>
> The lesson plan looks... interesting. Take a look:
>
> Day #1: Compiling, linking and running.
> Day #2: Program structure. Functions.
> Day #3: Variables and constants. Assignments. Printing results.
> Day #4: Statements, blocks and expressions. Branching.
> Day #5: Writing functions.
> Day #6: Writing classes and creating objects. Constructors.
> Day #7: For loops. While loops. If/then/else. Switch/case.
> Day #8: Pointers.
> Day #9: References.
> Day #10: Overloading. Dynamic allocation.
> Day #11: Inheritance. Virtual member functions.
> Day #12: Arrays. Strings. Pointer arithmetic.
> Day #13: Multiple inheritance. Abstract classes. Pure virtual functions.
> Day #14: Static members. Static functions. Pointers to functions.
> Day #15: Containment and delegation.
> Day #16: Streams. File I/O.
> Day #17: Namespaces.
> Day #18: OO analysis and design.
> Day #19: Templates. STL.
> Day #20: Exception handling.
> Day #21: Conditional compilation. The C preprocessor.
>
> Riiiight. So, let's see, on day #6 you start writing and using classes -
> a fairly advanced topic. And the next day, you learn /how to write a
> for-loop/, which is bread-and-butter stuff that every programmer knows
> about. That's... interesting.
>
> Oh, look. Day #12, you learn about inheritance, and the next day you
> learn about /arrays/?
>
> I'm also loving the complete lack of any coherent direction or
> organisation. It's like somebody decided what topics need to be in the
> book, and then did a random shuffle on them. One minute you're learning
> about arrays and strings, and the next minute it's multiple inheritance.
> Wuh??
>
> Suffice it to say, I'm not expecting much from this book. But who knows,
> maybe it will surprise me? Anyway, I've been working from an online
> resource, but it really doesn't go into enough detail. (E.g., it doesn't
> explain what a copy constructor is [or even mention that they exist],
> and that seems kinda important to me.) So now I'm going to try this book.
>
> The /other/ fun thing is that the book claims to be compliant with the
> "final ANSI/ISO C++ standard". Yeah, well, it was published in 1999. I'm
> going to go out on a limb and say the C++ standard may have changed
> slightly since then. ;-)
>
> If I find any particularly amusing remarks, I'll let you know...

you have wasted precious minutes writing these that I'm sure you won't 
recover from you alloted minutes on the topic about makefiles...

Post a reply to this message