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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #19841 > unrolled thread

C for linux ??

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  C for linux ?? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-22 14:19 +0800
    Re: C for linux ?? Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2012-11-22 08:27 +0100
      Re: C for linux ?? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-22 21:39 +0800
        Re: C for linux ?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-22 10:00 -0500
          Re: C for linux ?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-11-22 21:12 +0000
            Re: C for linux ?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-22 20:37 -0500
              Re: C for linux ?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-11-24 16:40 +0000
                Re: C for linux ?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-24 13:15 -0500
            Re: C for linux ?? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-23 10:06 +0800
              Re: C for linux ?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-11-24 16:18 +0000
                Re: C for linux ?? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-25 21:01 +0800
                Re: C for linux ?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-25 14:16 -0500
            Re: C for linux ?? "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-11-24 10:11 +0000
    Re: C for linux ?? Ben <kbw@allt2.se> - 2012-11-22 16:09 +0100
      Re: C for linux ?? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-23 10:08 +0800
    Re: C for linux ?? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-11-22 07:58 -0800

#19841 — C for linux ??

Strange.

Nobody talks about c-programming for Linux ?

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19845

2012-11-22 07:19, SL@maxis skrev:
> 
> Strange.
> 
> Nobody talks about c-programming for Linux ?
> 
Wrong group.

-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19849

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:27:40 +0800, Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com>  
wrote:

> Wrong group.

I mean there is no group on C/C++ programming for Linux ??


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19850

On 11/22/2012 8:39 AM, SL@maxis wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:27:40 +0800, Lars Enderin
> <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong group.
>
> I mean there is no group on C/C++ programming for Linux ??

Maybe not.

But there are both C, C++ and Linux groups.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19855

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:00:17 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 11/22/2012 8:39 AM, SL@maxis wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:27:40 +0800, Lars Enderin
>> <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong group.
>>
>> I mean there is no group on C/C++ programming for Linux ??
> 
> Maybe not.
> 
> But there are both C, C++ and Linux groups.
> 
What's there to talk about?

Anybody claiming a good working knowledge of Linux is probably already a 
decent C programmer and almost anything Linux-specific you'd need to know 
is covered in remarkably few books:

- "UNIX Systems Programming for SVR4" (the O'reilly "Lion" book) is still
  directly applicable to modern Linuxes.

- section 2 of the man pages (of course)

- "Lex & Yacc" (O'Reilly) - equally good for Flex and Bison

- "Pthreads Programming" (O'Reilly)


and, more generally

- "The Practice of Programming" - Kernighan & Pike

- "Algorithms" - Sedgewick

The latter two are useful no matter what language you're writing in. 
Kernighan & Pike is excellent for advice on writing well-structured 
programs that are easy to maintain and debug - and there's even a bit of 
Java in it. 

"Algorithms" is written in Pascal, but its good, clear well-explained 
code and very easy to transcribe into other languages. It was recommended 
to me by one of the best programmers I know and I've certainly found it 
useful. It may not be a comprehensive as Knuth, but it occupies a lot 
less shelf space and is rather cheaper, and I've found it more generally 
useful than Wirth's "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs".

I assume that every C programmer has a copy of Kernighan & Richie's "The 
C programming language".



-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19860

On 11/22/2012 4:12 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:00:17 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2012 8:39 AM, SL@maxis wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:27:40 +0800, Lars Enderin
>>> <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wrong group.
>>>
>>> I mean there is no group on C/C++ programming for Linux ??
>>
>> Maybe not.
>>
>> But there are both C, C++ and Linux groups.
>>
> What's there to talk about?
>
> Anybody claiming a good working knowledge of Linux is probably already a
> decent C programmer

Not necessarily today.

And even decent programmers may have a few questions.

>                      and almost anything Linux-specific you'd need to know
> is covered in remarkably few books:
>
> - "UNIX Systems Programming for SVR4" (the O'reilly "Lion" book) is still
>    directly applicable to modern Linuxes.
>
> - section 2 of the man pages (of course)
>
> - "Lex & Yacc" (O'Reilly) - equally good for Flex and Bison
>
> - "Pthreads Programming" (O'Reilly)
>
>
> and, more generally
>
> - "The Practice of Programming" - Kernighan & Pike
>
> - "Algorithms" - Sedgewick
>
> The latter two are useful no matter what language you're writing in.
> Kernighan & Pike is excellent for advice on writing well-structured
> programs that are easy to maintain and debug - and there's even a bit of
> Java in it.
>
> "Algorithms" is written in Pascal, but its good, clear well-explained
> code and very easy to transcribe into other languages. It was recommended
> to me by one of the best programmers I know and I've certainly found it
> useful. It may not be a comprehensive as Knuth, but it occupies a lot
> less shelf space and is rather cheaper, and I've found it more generally
> useful than Wirth's "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs".
>
> I assume that every C programmer has a copy of Kernighan & Richie's "The
> C programming language".

Looks like good books.

But there are also other good books.

Stevens' book on Unix programming.

For C++ "Accelerated c++" and the two "Effective C++" books.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19898

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:37:31 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> But there are also other good books.
> 
> Stevens' book on Unix programming.
>
Yes, I've always heard good things about his stuff. I even have his (old) 
fractals and graphics books. However, they're fairly useless now because 
they are closely associated with DOS device access and MS/Borland C 
compilers and, as I'm sure you know, the standard libraries for those 
compilers were very non-standard.
 
> For C++ "Accelerated c++" and the two "Effective C++" books.
>
I don't write C++. I have a copy of Stroustoup but found it much harder 
to read than K&R. 

I tried to get into C++ but (a) didn't like it a lot and (b) found *huge* 
binary bloat and rubbish performance. Besides, almost every time I've 
needed to read a C++ program I've discovered it to be essentially ANSI C 
with // comments and not an object in sight.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19900

On 11/24/2012 11:40 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:37:31 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> For C++ "Accelerated c++" and the two "Effective C++" books.
>>
> I don't write C++. I have a copy of Stroustoup but found it much harder
> to read than K&R.

C++ is a lot more complex than C.

No surprise that a C++ book is harder to read than a C book.

> I tried to get into C++ but (a) didn't like it a lot and

Not everyone does.

>                                                           (b) found *huge*
> binary bloat and rubbish performance.

C++ programs tend to pull in a few MB of code. About 1 cent
wort of RAM today.

:-)

C++ compilers today should optimize fine in general. But obviously
no guarantees.

>                                       Besides, almost every time I've
> needed to read a C++ program I've discovered it to be essentially ANSI C
> with // comments and not an object in sight.

// comments and declarations in the middle of the code.

I have seen that too.

Note that both are actually part of C99.

:-)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19861

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:12:52 +0800, Martin Gregorie  
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

> What's there to talk about?
> ...
> ...
> I assume that every C programmer has a copy of Kernighan & Richie's "The
> C programming language".

Thanks. I wonder I have the time to "gather so much" like you.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19897

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:06:52 +0800, SL@maxis wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:12:52 +0800, Martin Gregorie
> <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> What's there to talk about?
>> ...
>> ...
>> I assume that every C programmer has a copy of Kernighan & Richie's
>> "The C programming language".
> 
> Thanks. I wonder I have the time to "gather so much" like you.
>
I've been writing C for something like 25 years (and COBOL for the 15 
before that) and tend to collect books. That short list is the stuff I've 
settled on as the essentials for writing C in a *NIX environment. 

If your OS is something else you'd have other stuff instead of the Lion 
book and man pages: 

- for OS-9 v2 or v3 you'd have "OS-9 Insights" plus the "Operating 
System" and "Language" manuals (a pair of 50mm thick A5 ring binders that 
cover absolutely everything you'll ever need to know to write OS-9 
programs and drivers in C or assembler).

- for Windows, you'll probably end up with half a shelf of stuff which is 
likely to be incomplete, thanks to MS's fondness for undocumented 
features. Been there, done that, still got the pile of moldering books.

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19931

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:18:18 +0800, Martin Gregorie  
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> Thanks. I wonder I have the time to "gather so much" like you.
>>
> I've been writing C for something like 25 years (and COBOL for the 15
> before that) and tend to collect books. That short list is the stuff I've
> settled on as the essentials for writing C in a *NIX environment.
>
> ...
> - for Windows, you'll probably end up with half a shelf of stuff which is
> likely to be incomplete, thanks to MS's fondness for undocumented
> features. Been there, done that, still got the pile of moldering books.
>

When I say "gather so much" I mean there is so much "stuff" in your head.  
;-)

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19948

On 11/24/2012 11:18 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> - for Windows, you'll probably end up with half a shelf of stuff which is
> likely to be incomplete, thanks to MS's fondness for undocumented
> features. Been there, done that, still got the pile of moldering books.

There may be some undocumented stuff, but MS produces a lot
of documentation.

In 2008 installing the entire MSDN Library took 2.5 GB.

And it likely several times bigger today in 2012 (but you can
not download all of it - most of it is web access only).

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19889

Martin Gregorie wrote:

> - "Algorithms" - Sedgewick
>
> [...]
>
> "Algorithms" is written in Pascal, but its good, clear well-explained
> code and very easy to transcribe into other languages.

There's a C version of that book which is (IMO) even better -- not least 
because he spends less time complaining about Pascal's limitations ;-)

There are also multi-volume versions (as yet incomplete -- not unlike Knuth), 
but the shorter original versions are more approachable (actually I think 
they're better, although obviously not so complete).

    -- chris 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19851

SL@maxis skrev 2012-11-22 07:19:
> 
> Strange.
> 
> Nobody talks about c-programming for Linux ?
> 

Have a look at comp.unix.programmer, Lot of C in that group!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19862

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:09:16 +0800, Ben <kbw@allt2.se> wrote:

>
> Have a look at comp.unix.programmer, Lot of C in that group!

Thanks. I was a bit let down while looking high and low for "C/C++, linux".

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19852

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:19:01 +0800, "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Nobody talks about c-programming for Linux ?

Not really. This is the Java newsgroup.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Students who hire or con others to do their homework are as foolish 
as couch potatoes who hire others to go to the gym for them. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web