Learning C++, more or less...

[Rich Grise]

Well, since deciding I wanted to pursue this, it's only taken
me three weeks or so to finally click my way to
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html .

I'm getting the impression that the snippets from this book,
and various on-line tutorials, of which so far 2/3 have been
teaching C with C++ grammar, is the best I can do for free. :-)

I did find a good tutorial, though, that actually is about
OOP in general, getting to C++ for his examples in about chap.
6 or so:

http://www.zib.de/Visual/people/mueller/Course/Tutorial/tutorial.html

It's very enlightening - in a couple of weeks, I'll probably be able
to understand the questions in the NG! :-)

Cheers!
Rich

[David Hilsee]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message
news:yJOZc.1919 $UR2.972@trnddc 08...[color=blue]
> Well, since deciding I wanted to pursue this, it's only taken
> me three weeks or so to finally click my way to
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html .
>
> I'm getting the impression that the snippets from this book,
> and various on-line tutorials, of which so far 2/3 have been
> teaching C with C++ grammar, is the best I can do for free. :-)
>
> I did find a good tutorial, though, that actually is about
> OOP in general, getting to C++ for his examples in about chap.
> 6 or so:
> http://www.zib.de/Visual/people/muel.../tutorial.html
>
> It's very enlightening - in a couple of weeks, I'll probably be able
> to understand the questions in the NG! :-)[/color]

Thinking in C++ (http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/...ngInCPP2e.html)
is another good free resource.

--
David Hilsee

[Rich Grise]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...

David Hilsee wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message[/color]
....[color=blue][color=green]
>> It's very enlightening - in a couple of weeks, I'll probably be able
>> to understand the questions in the NG! :-)[/color]
>
> Thinking in C++ (http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/...ngInCPP2e.html)
> is another good free resource.
>[/color]
Thank you very much. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

[Rich Grise]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...

David Hilsee wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message
> news:yJOZc.1919 $UR2.972@trnddc 08...[color=green]
>> Well, since deciding I wanted to pursue this, it's only taken
>> me three weeks or so to finally click my way to
>> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html .
>>
>> I'm getting the impression that the snippets from this book,
>> and various on-line tutorials, of which so far 2/3 have been
>> teaching C with C++ grammar, is the best I can do for free. :-)
>>
>> I did find a good tutorial, though, that actually is about
>> OOP in general, getting to C++ for his examples in about chap.
>> 6 or so:
>> http://www.zib.de/Visual/people/muel.../tutorial.html
>>
>> It's very enlightening - in a couple of weeks, I'll probably be able
>> to understand the questions in the NG! :-)[/color]
>
> Thinking in C++ (http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/...ngInCPP2e.html)
> is another good free resource.
>[/color]
I've also been lurking, and following the thread about a 2D matrix with
some interest. It seems to me that it's not a built-in concept - they do
mention arrays, but so far it isn't clear if an ordinary array is a valid
C++ construct, just for old times' sake or something, but a 2D array seems
to be out of the question.

Well, the 2D array I have in mind isn't the kind of thing that you could
handle with any elegance as a vector, list, or map, that I can see, unless
you would create a new class Array2D or something, which wouldn't be hard at
all. The matrix I have in mind, of course, is something like you'd see on
minesweeper or "the game of life." Static, and each element has a state.

Maybe that's one of those times when an entirely nother language might
be more appropriate, like APL or something. ;-)

Then again, one of the tutorials is talking about point(), line(),
rectangle(), circle(), and such - maybe they'll get to "plane" and define
an XY array. I guess I'll find out! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

[Mike Wahler]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message
news:U%QZc.5624 $_%3.1908@trndd c06...[color=blue]
> David Hilsee wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message
> > news:yJOZc.1919 $UR2.972@trnddc 08...[color=darkred]
> >> Well, since deciding I wanted to pursue this, it's only taken
> >> me three weeks or so to finally click my way to
> >> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html .
> >>
> >> I'm getting the impression that the snippets from this book,
> >> and various on-line tutorials, of which so far 2/3 have been
> >> teaching C with C++ grammar, is the best I can do for free. :-)
> >>
> >> I did find a good tutorial, though, that actually is about
> >> OOP in general, getting to C++ for his examples in about chap.
> >> 6 or so:
> >> http://www.zib.de/Visual/people/muel.../tutorial.html
> >>
> >> It's very enlightening - in a couple of weeks, I'll probably be able
> >> to understand the questions in the NG! :-)[/color]
> >
> > Thinking in C++[/color][/color]
(http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/...ngInCPP2e.html)[color=blue][color=green]
> > is another good free resource.
> >[/color]
> I've also been lurking, and following the thread about a 2D matrix with
> some interest. It seems to me that it's not a built-in concept - they do
> mention arrays, but so far it isn't clear if an ordinary array is a valid
> C++ construct,[/color]

Sure it is. The syntax is the same as in C.

int array[10];
[color=blue]
> just for old times' sake or something, but a 2D array seems
> to be out of the question.[/color]

Not at all.

int arr2[10][10];
[color=blue]
>
> Well, the 2D array I have in mind isn't the kind of thing that you could
> handle with any elegance as a vector, list, or map,[/color]

A vector is the container that models an array. One can
indeed create a vector of vectors (of vectors, etc.).
"Elegance" is in the eye of the beholder, so I won't go there.
[color=blue]
> that I can see, unless
> you would create a new class Array2D or something, which wouldn't be hard[/color]
at[color=blue]
> all. The matrix I have in mind, of course, is something like you'd see on
> minesweeper or "the game of life." Static, and each element has a state.[/color]

The 'state' of an array element would be its value.
[color=blue]
>
> Maybe that's one of those times when an entirely nother language might
> be more appropriate, like APL or something. ;-)[/color]

C++ can handle it just fine.
[color=blue]
>
> Then again, one of the tutorials is talking about point(), line(),
> rectangle(), circle(), and such - maybe they'll get to "plane" and define
> an XY array. I guess I'll find out! ;-)[/color]

const size_t X(10);
const size_t Y(10);

int array[X][Y];

-Mike

[jeffc]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...


"Rich Grise" <null@example.n et> wrote in message
news:U%QZc.5624 $_%3.1908@trndd c06...[color=blue]
>
> Well, the 2D array I have in mind isn't the kind of thing that you could
> handle with any elegance as a vector, list, or map, that I can see[/color]

I think that either a vector of vectors or a map would do very nicely. A
vector of vectors *is* a 2D array (abstractly speaking), and a map gives
some additional niceties depending on what you're trying to do.

[puppet_sock@hotmail.com]

Re: Learning C++, more or less...

Rich Grise <null@example.n et> wrote in message news:<yJOZc.191 9$UR2.972@trndd c08>...
[snip][color=blue]
> I'm getting the impression that the snippets from this book,
> and various on-line tutorials, of which so far 2/3 have been
> teaching C with C++ grammar, is the best I can do for free. :-)[/color]

Hum. For free. Yes. Is your budget really so empty you can't afford
even one book? I'd suggest you go get yourself a copy of Koenig and
Moo _Accelerated C++_. They put your feet on the right path pretty
early on in the game.
Socks