Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

[Rensjuh]

Hello, does someone have / know a good C++ tutorial for beginnners? I would prefer Dutch, but English is also fine.

Hoi, heeft / kent iemand nog een goede C++ tutorial voor beginners? Het liefste in Nederlands, maar Engels is ook goed.

Thnx,
Rensjuh

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

Rensjuh <rens.wingens@h ccnet.nl> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> Hello, does someone have / know a good C++ tutorial for beginnners? I would prefer Dutch, but English is also fine.[/color]

The FAQ for this group isn't really a tutorial, and it's in English.
That said, you may nevertheless find it useful:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Scott Simontis]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote in message news:<cgvg7g$gu i$1@chessie.cir r.com>...[color=blue]
> Rensjuh <rens.wingens@h ccnet.nl> spoke thus:
>[color=green]
> > Hello, does someone have / know a good C++ tutorial for beginnners? I would prefer Dutch, but English is also fine.[/color]
>
> The FAQ for this group isn't really a tutorial, and it's in English.
> That said, you may nevertheless find it useful:
>
> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/[/color]

I think that C++ From The Ground Up by Herbert Schildt is a good book
to learn C++ from. That is how I learned it. Otherwise,
www.cprogramming.com has some tutorials, although I do not like them.
www.gametutorials.com also has some C and C++ tutorials. It can be
difficult to find C++ tutorials on the web that are good, I prefer to
use books. I reccomend going to a local bookstore and looking at the
C++ books. Make sure that the book is fairly recent, within your price
range, written for your skill level, and that the author is not
extremely bland for you. Also, all the websites are in English.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

Scott Simontis <ageofscott@com cast.net> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> I think that C++ From The Ground Up by Herbert Schildt is a good book
> to learn C++ from.[/color]

Most people here (and on comp.lang.c) would disagree, but YMMV (as
well as OP's).

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Mike Wahler]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

"Scott Simontis" <ageofscott@com cast.net> wrote in message
news:55a692b8.0 408301653.614fa d76@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote in message[/color]
news:<cgvg7g$gu i$1@chessie.cir r.com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Rensjuh <rens.wingens@h ccnet.nl> spoke thus:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Hello, does someone have / know a good C++ tutorial for beginnners? I[/color][/color][/color]
would prefer Dutch, but English is also fine.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > The FAQ for this group isn't really a tutorial, and it's in English.
> > That said, you may nevertheless find it useful:
> >
> > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/[/color]
>
> I think that C++ From The Ground Up by Herbert Schildt is a good book
> to learn C++ from. That is how I learned it.[/color]

http://ma.rtij.nl/acllc-c++.FAQ.html#q6.4

-Mike

[Mabden]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

"Christophe r Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote in message
news:ch1t34$m2t $1@chessie.cirr .com...[color=blue]
> Scott Simontis <ageofscott@com cast.net> spoke thus:
>[color=green]
> > I think that C++ From The Ground Up by Herbert Schildt is a good book
> > to learn C++ from.[/color]
>
> Most people here (and on comp.lang.c) would disagree, but YMMV (as
> well as OP's).[/color]

Well, people certainly have a lot of time on their hands. I haven't read the
book in question, but the first few pages of
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html gave me a new understanding of the
word minutiae. I can only imagine it is a beginners book and not actually
designed to split standards hairs. Now I won't recommend it or anything, but
the list of trivia on the web site for a first programming book was amazing.
Has this guy seen my 3rd grade science book?

Examples of things I don't care about in my first program, the authors
comments are prefaced by ##, with the idiot nitpicker following (my comments
begin with Huh?)

=============== ============
"
## No other keywords are allowed in a conforming program.
Of course, no other keywords are allowed in a strictly conforming program.
"
Huh? What does this even mean _strictly_ speaking.

"
## x = 'A'; /* give x the value 65 */
This comment, and the following text, leave the reader believing that 'A'
must have the value 65, and by extension that C requires the use of ASCII
codes. This is of course false, but it would be hard to tell from the book.
"

Huh? ^2 I'm trying to print "Hello, World!" - Do I need EBCDIC vs ASCII
right now?!!

## First, the null character may not be used except
## in the first byte of a multibyte sequence.

I read this as meaning that the multibyte character <00><94> is legal while
the multibyte character <94><00> is not. In actual fact, the standard
states that a zero byte must not appear in any multibyte character other
than the null character (i.e. the end of string indicator).

Huh? Isn't that the first byte in a multibyte character? Who cares if a 94
comes after the null? Am I supposed to care about the garbage after my
string's null? No.

=============== ============

I got bored after that.
--
Mabden

[Jerry Coffin]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

"Mabden" <mabden@sbc_glo bal.net> wrote in message news:<d7aZc.139 41$Qe6.6510@new ssvr27.news.pro digy.com>...

[ ... ]
[color=blue]
> Examples of things I don't care about in my first program, the authors
> comments are prefaced by ##, with the idiot nitpicker following (my comments
> begin with Huh?)[/color]

The bottom line is pretty simple: it's perfectly fine for a beginner's
book to sipmlify, gloss over details, etc.

It's NOT fine (or even forgivable) for it to teach things that are
actually wrong. It's absolutely true that most of the things you
pointed out don't matter to a beginner -- but that points out problems
in the book rather than in its critique. The book should simply have
ignored the things it wasn't really going to teach. As-is, the book
contains as much misinformation as it does information, and makes it
virtually impossible for the beginner to sort out what most of it
really means at all.

Most regular members of the C and C++ related newsgroups dislike
Herbert Schildt's books for a very specific reason: people who study
his books consistently end up asking questions that are based on false
assumptions. To solve the problems, the regulars have to go back to
the first principles and give long, boring explanations about why and
how most of the assumptions the person is making are blatantly wrong,
and the person will have to go forget most of what he thinks he knows
before he has any hope of learning things that are correct.

IMO, anybody writing a book on programming should be required to take
an equivalent of (at least part of) the Hippocratic oath -- "First, do
no harm." Likewise, books should be judged (to a large extent) based
on the degree to which they meet that criterion -- and in that regard,
every one of Herbert Schildt's books is a spectacular failure.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

[Mabden]

Re: Tutorial for beginner/ Tutorial voor beginner

"Jerry Coffin" <jcoffin@taeus. com> wrote in message
news:b2e4b04.04 09010603.500f05 be@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> "Mabden" <mabden@sbc_glo bal.net> wrote in message[/color]
news:<d7aZc.139 41$Qe6.6510@new ssvr27.news.pro digy.com>...[color=blue]
>
> Most regular members of the C and C++ related newsgroups dislike
> Herbert Schildt's books for a very specific reason: people who study
> his books consistently end up asking questions that are based on false
> assumptions. To solve the problems, the regulars have to go back to
> the first principles and give long, boring explanations about why and
> how most of the assumptions the person is making are blatantly wrong,
> and the person will have to go forget most of what he thinks he knows
> before he has any hope of learning things that are correct.[/color]

I can see that. I haven't been posting here long enough to be annoyed by
things that I see Ranting Regulars (no offense, y'all) pick on. So to me, it
looks like trivial stuff and I want to yell, "Get over it!!" But I guess the
pollution factor and the time factor really haven't hit me yet, so it
doesn't really seem important to me personally. And it seems like some RR
spend more time shouting down others than just ignoring the post and moving
on, and I do have to read those. I mean, that's what killfiles are FOR (and
I get the feeling I'm getting close to ending up there myself, but it's just
my opinion, sorry)!

My point is, when does shouting down a troll make a person or group a troll
themselves. Why do I have to read 10 posts saying don't read the first post?
Wouldn't it just go away quicker via silence versus hoot - and - holler?

--
Mabden