coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

[Agent Mulder]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

<Marmagya>
There are scores of books available on Java and C++. This group
comprises of experts in these two languages. Would anyone point out to a
few good reference books? Basically I am looking for books that target a
beginner in these languages.
</Marmagya>

There is wide consensus over the quality of these two C++ books:

-Koenig,Moo;Acce lerated C++;Addison-Wesly
-Stroustrup;The C++ Programming Language;Addiso n-Wesly

Two Java books that did it to me where:

-Niemeyer,Peck;E xploring Java;O'Reilly
-Chan,Lee;The Java Class Libraries Second
Edition,Volume2 ;Addison-Wesley

The last one is chock full of examples that you
can easily type in. After that, you wont fear any
GUI.

-X

[TLOlczyk]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:01:41 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
<mcpierce@myrea lbox.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Have you maintained familiarity with generic programming as well as the
>newer features of C++, such as namespaces (not a hard topic but a fine
>entry point to ask)? I did C++ for years before I picked up Java and was
>surprised last year at how much C++ had changed in the meantime. I read
>two C++ starter books last year to reacquaint myself and have since read
>a few other books, such as _Modern C++ Design_ and _Effective C++_.[/color]
I would focus a bit on namespaces, more on STL. I would not focus on
generic programming for one simple reason: it violates Feynmans middle
cog rule-- when having to chose a cog with a fixed tooth to diameter
ratio, always choose a cog from the middle of your group. ( Reason the
cog on both ends of the group will always be marginal, if they could
make them smaller or bigger they would. Since they can't that suggests
that they were just barely able to make the ones on the end. )

[Digital Puer]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

Agent Mulder wrote:[color=blue]
> There is wide consensus over the quality of these two C++ books:
>
> -Koenig,Moo;Acce lerated C++;Addison-Wesly[/color]

I agree. This is the book I'm using to review my C++. I like this
book because it jumps right into use of the STL. If you want
a softer start and are already familiar with C, you can
try "C++: The Core Language" by Satir and Brown, but it
does not reach templates or the STL.



[color=blue]
> -Stroustrup;The C++ Programming Language;Addiso n-Wesly[/color]

This was a bit too hard-core for me.

[color=blue]
> Two Java books that did it to me where:
>
> -Niemeyer,Peck;E xploring Java;O'Reilly
> -Chan,Lee;The Java Class Libraries Second
> Edition,Volume2 ;Addison-Wesley
>
> The last one is chock full of examples that you
> can easily type in. After that, you wont fear any
> GUI.[/color]

If you already know C, then "Just Java" by van der Linden
is a great introduction to Java.

[llewelly]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)


[comp.lang.java. programmer, etc, removed]

Digital Puer <digital_puer@h otjail.comet> writes:
[color=blue]
> Agent Mulder wrote:[color=green]
>> There is wide consensus over the quality of these two C++ books:
>>
>> -Koenig,Moo;Acce lerated C++;Addison-Wesly[/color]
>
> I agree. This is the book I'm using to review my C++. I like this
> book because it jumps right into use of the STL. If you want
> a softer start and are already familiar with C, you can
> try "C++: The Core Language" by Satir and Brown, but it
> does not reach templates or the STL.[/color]
[snip]

Accelerated C++ is excellent, but before you decide to read _C++: The Core
Language_, you should read:

http://www.accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0au_b&file=cp002009a

I own that book, and I feel it is a very bad C++ book. I will not loan
to anyone, for fear they will be worse off for having read
it. This was big disappointment for me, after all the excellent
O'Reilly books I have read, to find one so awful.

[Agent Mulder]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

<Agent Mulder>[color=blue]
> There is wide consensus over the quality of these two C++ books:
>
> -Koenig,Moo;Acce lerated C++;Addison-Wesly[/color]
</Agent Mulder>

<Digital Puer>[color=blue]
> I agree. This is the book I'm using to review my C++. I like this
> book because it jumps right into use of the STL. If you want
> a softer start and are already familiar with C, you can
> try "C++: The Core Language" by Satir and Brown, but it
> does not reach templates or the STL.[/color]
</Digital Puer>

<llewelly>
I own that book, and I feel it is a very bad C++ book. I will not loan
to anyone, for fear they will be worse off for having read
it. This was big disappointment for me, after all the excellent
O'Reilly books I have read, to find one so awful.
</llewelly>

I have it, too. It shows a sniffling coatimundi on the cover, a South
American mammal of the Procyonid family. Never read it but I'll take
your word for it. Times are gone were you would buy an O'Reilly book
just because it was an O'Reilly book. I owe a completely useless Java
Language Reference by Mark Grand. But on the other hand,
Java in a Nutshell (David Flanagan) is very good, especially when you're
into C++.

-X

[jeffc]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)


"Agent Mulder" <mbmulder_remov e_this_@home.nl > wrote in message
news:bivcp5$llu $1@news3.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> <Marmagya>
> There are scores of books available on Java and C++. This group
> comprises of experts in these two languages. Would anyone point out to a
> few good reference books? Basically I am looking for books that target a
> beginner in these languages.
> </Marmagya>
>
> There is wide consensus over the quality of these two C++ books:
>
> -Koenig,Moo;Acce lerated C++;Addison-Wesly
> -Stroustrup;The C++ Programming Language;Addiso n-Wesly[/color]

Stroustrup, as the reference bible, does not exactly "target beginners".
That's a good book to have only in addition to others that help teach C++
programming. Accelerated C++ is good assuming you have solid programming
skills to begin with, e.g. in C. Thinking in C++ by Eckel is especially
good for transforming C programmers into C++ programmers. Effective C++ is
often quoted as a good book, and I disagree, but only in combination with
others. One that doesn't get recommended nearly enough is C++ FAQs by
Cline.

[Agent Mulder]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

<jeffc>
Stroustrup, as the reference bible, does not exactly "target beginners".
That's a good book to have only in addition to others that help teach C++
programming. Accelerated C++ is good assuming you have solid programming
skills to begin with, e.g. in C. Thinking in C++ by Eckel is especially
good for transforming C programmers into C++ programmers. Effective C++ is
often quoted as a good book, and I disagree, but only in combination with
others. One that doesn't get recommended nearly enough is C++ FAQs by
Cline.
</jeffc>

Agreed. I only know it on-line, though, and holding the book is a difference
that makes a difference. I think my first steps in C++ were with

Prata;C++ Primer Plus (Covers C++ 2.0/2.1);Waite Group Press;1991.

but I'm not sure. The best you can get (beside Accelerated C++) is the
documentation that came with the software from Borland and from
Microsoft C/C++.

-X

[jeffc]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)


"Agent Mulder" <mbmulder_remov e_this_@home.nl > wrote in message
news:bj2mqi$u51 $1@news2.tilbu1 .nb.home.nl...[color=blue]
> <jeffc>
> Stroustrup, as the reference bible, does not exactly "target beginners".
> That's a good book to have only in addition to others that help teach C++
> programming. Accelerated C++ is good assuming you have solid programming
> skills to begin with, e.g. in C. Thinking in C++ by Eckel is especially
> good for transforming C programmers into C++ programmers. Effective C++[/color]
is[color=blue]
> often quoted as a good book, and I disagree, but only in combination with
> others. One that doesn't get recommended nearly enough is C++ FAQs by
> Cline.
> </jeffc>
>
> Agreed. I only know it on-line, though, and holding the book is a[/color]
difference[color=blue]
> that makes a difference.[/color]

Actually, since you brought it up :-), most people don't realize there is
actually a bigger difference. They see the FAQ online and just assume they
won't need the book. I found the book invaluable while learning, for it's
succinctness, clarity, and relevance. I still refer to it from time to time.
I can't recommend it enough. From the book:

FAQ 0.8 Why did we write this book?
.... Fourth, this project spurred us to expand the material vastly beyond
what is provided by the electronic FAQ. In the end, after adding all the
new FAQs, examples, and internal and external cross references, the book
contains five times more material than the electronic FAQ.

[jeffc]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)


"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere .com> wrote in message
news:3f54dc2b_1 @news1.prserv.n et...[color=blue]
> Effective C++ is
> often quoted as a good book, and I disagree, but only in combination with
> others.[/color]

s/b "and I agree".

[Dale King]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

"Digital Puer" <digital_puer@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:80678590.0 308290059.d2075 04@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> I'm looking at some software development jobs whose listings
> require C++ experience. My history is that I have a strong
> C background, and a few years of C++ from undergrad classes.
> I've been working with Java since 1997 and consider myself
> a decent Java programmer.
>
> Now, if I apply for C++ jobs, do you think it's important that
> I know the fine details of C++? or would a strong, generalised
> knowledge of object-oriented programming be more important?
> I don't think there's anything major in C++ I wouldn't recall
> if I had a few minutes to look it up in a book.[/color]

From my experience, your experience in Java probably makes you a better C++
programmer (once you pick up some of the finer points of C++) than someone
that is strictly C/C++ experience. I know that I am a much better C++
programmer now than I was before Java. While C++ can be used in an
object-oriented fashion, it quite frequently isn't or is done poorly. I find
that Java just encourages better programming techniques. That is not to say
that those techniques cannot be applied in C++, just that their use is not
as widespread and you are more likely to know them from your experience in
Java. So you might take that approach in selling yourself to the employer.

--
Dale King

[Dale King]

Re: coming back to C++ for a job (C++ and Java)

"Digital Puer" <digital_puer@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:80678590.0 308301240.ea3f8 b1@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> To answer various responses, I'm looking at C++ largely because
> the particular jobs I'm looking for happen to require C++, not
> because I don't like Java anymore. Also, I'll start working with
> C# the day they pry my cold, dead hands away from my Sun UltraSPARC
> keyboard.[/color]

I don't have any trouble with using C# the language, but would refuse to use
..NOT. If C# were adopted by a third party and did not use .NOT then I would
have no trouble using it. I actually think that for embedded programming
(the are I work in) C# as a language might be a better fit in some cases
than C++ or Java.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I still don't understand what the hell RTTI does, what a virtual[/color]
> destructor is, and how to resolve circular inheritence (something
> Java doesn't have), but that just means I have more to read.[/color]

RTTI is basically a way to find out the type of an object at runtime so it
lets you do something like instanceof in Java and to get information about
the class. C++ normally does not check your casts like Java does. RTTI also
gives you a way to have you your casts checked. You can think of it as a
very limited version of reflection.

In Java, every method is virtual unless it is declared final or private. In
C++ it is only virtual if you declare it so. If your class is going to be
subclassed then always declare a virtual destructor in the base class.

The solution to the last (if I understand what you mean) is to never use
multiple inheritance.

--
Dale King