Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #6669

Re: Anonymous namespace

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:01:17 -0700, Michael Doubez wrote:

> On 10 juin, 19:45, mrbrklyn <ceo.brook...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 4:49 am, Michael Doubez <michael.dou...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 10 juin, 06:12, Ruben Safir <ru...@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:26:08 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> > > >>> namespace unique {} using namespace unique; namespace unique {
>> > > >>> ... }
>>
>> > > >> ugg - back to the namespace syntax chapter...
>>
>> > > > If you *do* have a book,
>>
>> > > Jorgen, do you think I have any C++ references and do you think I
>> > > read them.  It's irrelevant since the namespace sections in
>> > > Stroudtrup are nearly incomprehensible and written more like a
>> > > dissertation than a learning tool,
>>
>> > Well, IMHO it is because he explains the namespace functionality in
>> > perspective of the problem it is intended to solve.
>>
>> > > and Lippman's book is written just as incomprehensibly, but like a
>> > > cookbook,
>>
>> > You must be talking about "Essential C++". I rather agree with you.
>> > Some minds prefer a narrative approach.
>>
>> > > and Deitels is incomplete, although better organized, and frankly,
>> > > there isn't a decent C++ text on the market (as of yet)
>>
>> > IMO "Accelerated C++" is the best for beginners.
>>
>> > Once you get a little background, the Effective serie of Scott Meyers
>> > and Exceptional serie of Herb Sutter get you up to speed.
>>
>> > If you want to work on template "C++ templates" by Vandevoorde &
>> > Josuttis is the clearer.
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > --
>> > Micha
>>
>> I don't want to be critical of texts I haven't explored, but I've spent
>> a good deal of time
>> pouring over books at the Big College Barnes and Nobles on 5th avenue
>> and 17th street that supplies nearly all the universities in Manhattan
>> and the
>> picking is slim.  The Template book approaches usability.
>>
>> Three things are wrong with the majority of texts:
>>
>> A) They assume you are an experienced C programmer.
> 
> Well, that is exactly the point of Accelerated C++. It takes C++ as a
> new language, not as an outcrop of C.
> 
>> B) They lack a definitive appendix of all the standard libraries ...
>> precisely.  The appendix in most of these books are endless jabbering
>> of semi-thought out expressions of complex ideas.
> 
> I don't know exactly what libraries you expect but Josuttis bokk "The C
> ++ Standard Library" is kind of a reference.
> 

Thanks Michael.  First chance I get i will look both these up.

I appreciate your information and effort.


>> C) The utterly fail to teach fundamentals.  Fundamentals...this is a
>> compiler.  This is an editor.
> 
> Well. I guess an internet tutorial is best suited for this kid of
> demand.
>

This really needs to be integrated in every section of a language book.  
Compilers, linkers and stacks need to be a constant subject.  It frankly 
boggles my mind that templates are taught without compiler discussion, 
and the standards could be annotated from time to time.
 
>> D) They fail to teach theory.
> 
> Theory of what ?

memory, compilers, stacks, binary representation (which might be taught 
before pointers), esied optimization, scope theory and practice, 
structure red programming theory, sorting theory, algorithms, lamda's
just to name a few things.

When i taught at the New School, it took me 2 weeks to understand that 
students really didn't understand what a variable was, or the 
relationship between their keyboard, output device to the computer.



> 
> If you are thinking theory of design, there is the pattern movement.
> 
> There are also some books like Alexander stephanov's Elements of
> programming.
> http://www.elementsofprogramming.com/
> 
>> I have a doctoral in Pharmaceutics and if my text on differential
>> equations were like that, I'd have difficult time graduating.
> 
> But that was science with a rather limited scope.
> 

The physical chemistry and math wasn't.


>> But I'll look at your suggestions although the idea, "get you up to
>> speed" would ordinary  be exactly what I don't want.  If I want to get
>> up to speed fast, one can drop back down to perl.
> 
> I mean up to speed concerning C++'s usage and idioms.

Learning idioms is very important.  But learning how and why they work is 
what is necessary to truly be a master of any language.

Ruben

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Anonymous namespace Ruben Safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2011-06-04 05:01 +0000
  Re: Anonymous namespace Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-09 11:26 +0000
    Re: Anonymous namespace Ruben Safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2011-06-10 04:12 +0000
      Re: Anonymous namespace Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-10 01:49 -0700
        Re: Anonymous namespace mrbrklyn <ceo.brooklyn@gmail.com> - 2011-06-10 10:34 -0700
        Re: Anonymous namespace mrbrklyn <ceo.brooklyn@gmail.com> - 2011-06-10 10:45 -0700
          Re: Anonymous namespace Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-12 00:01 -0700
            Re: Anonymous namespace ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2011-06-13 04:08 +0000
              Re: Anonymous namespace Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-13 08:43 -0700
      Re: Anonymous namespace Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-10 18:27 +0000
        Re: Anonymous namespace ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2011-06-13 05:02 +0000
          Re: Anonymous namespace Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-13 07:58 +0000
            Re: "namespaces were a mistake" (was: Anonymous namespace) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-06-13 09:56 -0700
            Re: "namespaces were a mistake" (was: Anonymous namespace) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-13 19:52 +0000
              Re: "namespaces were a mistake" Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-06-14 13:43 +0900
                Re: "namespaces were a mistake" Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-06-15 07:15 +0900
                Re: "namespaces were a mistake" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-15 12:01 +0000
              Re: "namespaces were a mistake" (was: Anonymous namespace) drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) - 2011-06-14 12:24 +0000
                Re: "namespaces were a mistake" (was: Anonymous namespace) gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 06:00 -0700
                Re: "namespaces were a mistake" (was: Anonymous namespace) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 14:10 -0700
                Re: "namespaces were a mistake" Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-06-15 06:30 +0900

csiph-web