c++ for python programmers

[Thomas Nelson]

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?

Thanks,

Thomas

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ma=EBl_Benjamin_Mettler?=]

Re: c++ for python programmers

SAMS "Teach yourself C in 21 days" by Bradley L. Jones and Peter Aitken

Learning C++ is not worth is in my opinion, since you can get the OOP
power from Python and use C if you need speed...

Thomas Nelson schrieb:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?
>
Thanks,
>
Thomas
>

[sjdevnull@yahoo.com]

Re: c++ for python programmers

Thomas Nelson wrote:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?

I would stick with C unless you need to edit C++ code. (Calling them
C/C++ doesn't make much sense as they're separate languages).

The biggest sticking points aren't going to be helped much by a Python
background, so I'd just use one of the tutorials recommended over in
comp.lang.c (Richard Heathfield had a useful link at one point).

[andrew clarke]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:00:51AM -0800, Thomas Nelson wrote:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?

Thomas, I sent you a message off-list but it bounced due to your mailbox
being full.

Short answer: Subscribe to the c-prog@yahoogroup s.com mailing list and
ask your C/C++ questions there.

Regards
Andrew

[Thomas Nelson]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Feb 12, 1:35 pm, andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis. comwrote:

Thomas, I sent you a message off-list but it bounced due to your mailbox
being full.
>
Short answer: Subscribe to the c-prog@yahoogroup s.com mailing list and
ask your C/C++ questions there.
>
Regards
Andrew

I have to edit a large C++ project written by someone else. My email
address
above is incorrect; replace mail with cs. Thanks for the help.

Thomas

[Andy Terrel]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Feb 12, 4:11 pm, "Thomas Nelson" <t...@mail.utex as.eduwrote:

On Feb 12, 1:35 pm, andrew clarke <m...@ozzmosis. comwrote:
>

Thomas, I sent you a message off-list but it bounced due to your mailbox
being full.

>

Short answer: Subscribe to the c-p...@yahoogroup s.com mailing list and
ask your C/C++ questions there.

>

Regards
Andrew

>
I have to edit a large C++ project written by someone else. My email
address
above is incorrect; replace mail with cs. Thanks for the help.
>
Thomas

To learn C I recommend K&R (Kernigahn and Richie), for C++ I like
Savitch's book, Absolute C++. I too learned python then c/c++. Also I
would disagree with the people saying never to use C++, it will run
much faster for computationally intensive programs. It will make you
a better python programmer, you get to see how things are done "under
the hood".

[Nicola Musatti]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Feb 12, 7:00 pm, "Thomas Nelson" <t...@mail.utex as.eduwrote:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?

I don't think there's any book catering specifically for people coming
from dynamically typed languages. If you want a crash course try
"Accelerate d C++", by Koenig & Moo; if you want something more gentle,
that may also serve as a reference, go for "C++ Primer", by Lippman,
Lajoie & Moo. Both books from Addison Wesley.

As for something freely available people speak well of Bruce Eckel's
"Thinking in C++", but I haven't read it: http://www.mindview.net/
Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e .html

Cheers,
Nicola Musatti

[Neil Cerutti]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On 2007-02-12, Thomas Nelson <thn@mail.utexa s.eduwrote:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction
most people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++
introduction for python programmers?

To become productive in C++ in a short time, especially with a
Python background, I highly recommend Koenig & Moo _Accelerated
C++_.

It's not enough C++ to join a C++ team at a professional
development house (of course no book can provide that), but it's
all the best bits.

If you get through that, then proceed directly to the source,
Stroustrup _The C++ Programming language_.

--
Neil Cerutti
You only get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so many times. --Ike Taylor

[Jorgen Grahn]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:35:36 +1100, andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis. comwrote:

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:00:51AM -0800, Thomas Nelson wrote:
>

>I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
>people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
>python programmers?

>
Thomas, I sent you a message off-list but it bounced due to your mailbox
being full.
>
Short answer: Subscribe to the c-prog@yahoogroup s.com mailing list and
ask your C/C++ questions there.

Why on earth should he do that, seeing that he seems to post here over
Usenet? There are plenty of Usenet groups for both languages. For C++, there
are comp.lang.c++ and comp.lang.c++.m oderated. Reading the second one has
been both useful and enjoyable for me.

And to echo what someone else wrote: please don't use the term "C/C++". It
makes about the same sense as "Perl/Python" (or "Python/Perl").

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyn dns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[Jorgen Grahn]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:10:02 +0100, Maël Benjamin Mettler <mbm@mediamonge r.chwrote:

Thomas Nelson schrieb:

[top posting fixed]

>I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
>people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
>python programmers?

Learning C++ is not worth is in my opinion, since you can get the OOP
power from Python and use C if you need speed...

Well, C++ is a better language than C in many ways. So, if he needs to learn
one of them, why does it have to be C?

Another reason some people choose C++ over Python for some tasks is that
they feel that larger programs benefit from strong, static type checking.
I like both ways, but depending on the task, one or the other is better.

And then there's always the "my boss told me" reason, which seems to apply
to the OP.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyn dns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[Sam]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On 13 Feb 2007 17:51:00 GMT, Jorgen Grahn
<grahn+nntp@sni pabacken.dyndns .orgwrote:

Well, C++ is a better language than C in many ways. So, if he needs to learn
one of them, why does it have to be C?
>
Another reason some people choose C++ over Python for some tasks is that
they feel that larger programs benefit from strong, static type checking.
I like both ways, but depending on the task, one or the other is better.

C++ is -not- strongly typed. You can cast anything to void *, and
manipulate it in ways unimaginable. Plus there's the whole mess that
is pointer arithmetic and a weak typesystem...

Disclaimer: I am unashamedly in the "C++ Is Evil" camp, and wholly
believe that if you want proper strong, static type checking, use
Haskell, or if you want proper, complete object-orientation (C++'s
primitive types compromise its object system's integrity, and I
believe I've already discussed casting and pointers), use Python, and
if you want under-the-hood pointer-fu, use C.

--Sam

[Anders Arnholm]

Re: c++ for python programmers

Sam <free.condiment s@gmail.comskri ver:

On 13 Feb 2007 17:51:00 GMT, Jorgen Grahn
><grahn+nntp@sn ipabacken.dyndn s.orgwrote:

>Well, C++ is a better language than C in many ways. So, if he needs to learn
>one of them, why does it have to be C?
>>
>Another reason some people choose C++ over Python for some tasks is that
>they feel that larger programs benefit from strong, static type checking.
>I like both ways, but depending on the task, one or the other is better.

>
C++ is -not- strongly typed. You can cast anything to void *, and
manipulate it in ways unimaginable. Plus there's the whole mess that
is pointer arithmetic and a weak typesystem...

C++ can be both, The type systenm is as fragila as you like it to be.
I mainlty use c++ when i the need stronger typing that Python och C
can't give me. In some ways it's even stronger types than languanges
as Java and ObjectiveC. C++ it however at least four different
languanges, in one ball of soupe.

And yes you can do it, that doesn't mean you have to dio it. As
_functions in python or __, you can use them from anyware, you don't
have to.

/ Balp


--
http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

[Nicola Musatti]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On Feb 14, 12:26 am, Sam <free.condime.. .@gmail.comwrot e:
[...]

C++ is -not- strongly typed. You can cast anything to void *, and
manipulate it in ways unimaginable. Plus there's the whole mess that
is pointer arithmetic and a weak typesystem...

The previous poster wrote "strongly typed", not "a straight jacket".
The fact that you may do certain things doesn't mean that you have to
nor that they are going to be done to you against your will.

Disclaimer: I am unashamedly in the "C++ Is Evil" camp, and wholly
believe that if you want proper strong, static type checking, use
Haskell, or if you want proper, complete object-orientation (C++'s
primitive types compromise its object system's integrity, and I
believe I've already discussed casting and pointers), use Python, and
if you want under-the-hood pointer-fu, use C.

The trouble is that in addition to proper, strong, static type
checking people often also want their daily bread, fancy that. As to
the merits of complete object orientation, I'd like to hear about
them, because nobody managed to explain them to me in a satisfactory
way yet.

There are many valid reasons to dislike C++ and to prefer Python to
it, but dismissing it as "C++ Is Evil" is just plain stupid. Moreover,
C might be a valid competitor for small projects and it probably
covers most Pythonistas' needs for "closeness to the metal", but it
just doesn't scale.

Cheers,
Nicola Musatti

[jkn]

Re: c++ for python programmers

Hi Thomas

On Feb 12, 6:00 pm, "Thomas Nelson" <t...@mail.utex as.eduwrote:

I realize I'm approaching this backwards from the direction most
people go, but does anyone know of a good c/c++ introduction for
python programmers?
>

They are not particularly aimed at Python programmers, but Bruce
Eckel's "Thinking in C++" books are (a) excellent, and (b) freely
downloadable, as well as purchasable in book form:

http://www.mindview.net/

Bruce is a python fan FWIW ;-)

HTH
Jon N

[Neil Cerutti]

Re: c++ for python programmers

On 2007-02-13, Sam <free.condiment s@gmail.comwrot e:

On 13 Feb 2007 17:51:00 GMT, Jorgen Grahn
><grahn+nntp@sn ipabacken.dyndn s.orgwrote:

>Well, C++ is a better language than C in many ways. So, if he
>needs to learn one of them, why does it have to be C?
>>
>Another reason some people choose C++ over Python for some
>tasks is that they feel that larger programs benefit from
>strong, static type checking. I like both ways, but depending
>on the task, one or the other is better.

>
C++ is -not- strongly typed. You can cast anything to void *,
and manipulate it in ways unimaginable. Plus there's the whole
mess that is pointer arithmetic and a weak typesystem...

Don't forget the lack of standard garbage collection.

Also there's the hell known as exception safety.

Python conceptually has many of the same issues with exception
safety, but at least memory leaks aren't one of the consequences.
I imagine most Python programmers don't even think about
exception safety, but probably should be. We just happily raise
exceptions willy-nilly, without worrying about our objects
remaining in a reasonable state. Or do we? Maybe it's better not
to think about it. ;-)

Disclaimer: I am unashamedly in the "C++ Is Evil" camp, and
wholly believe that if you want proper strong, static type
checking, use Haskell, or if you want proper, complete
object-orientation (C++'s primitive types compromise its object
system's integrity, and I believe I've already discussed
casting and pointers), use Python, and if you want
under-the-hood pointer-fu, use C.

C++'s standard library seems such a huge win over the C library,
that I'd hate to switch back. Of course it has its warts and
cancers, but it's an awesome accomplishment. And you *can* get
harder-to-use C versions that are basically portable.

--
Neil Cerutti
A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.
--Everett Dirksen