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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #68523 > unrolled thread

Best book to learn C++11 and C++14?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-19 14:24 +0000
    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-23 20:37 +0200
      Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-25 11:16 +0000
        Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-25 13:16 +0000
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-25 13:05 -0700
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-30 12:02 +0000
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 05:32 -0700
            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-30 15:30 +0200
              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 07:14 -0700
                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-30 16:48 +0200
                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:14 -0700
                    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 10:54 +0200
                      Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-10-01 02:48 -0700
                        Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 13:25 +0200
                          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 13:53 +0100
                            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 15:33 +0200
                              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 16:10 +0100
                                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 21:07 +0200
                                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 20:29 +0100
                                    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 22:58 +0200
                                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-01 12:52 -0700
                          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-01 11:50 -0700
                            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 20:22 +0100
                              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-10-04 17:28 +0200
            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-30 14:47 +0000
              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 14:07 +0100
                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-10-01 16:10 +0000
                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 19:58 +0100
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 15:06 +0200
    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-23 19:28 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#68870

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[161 lines deleted]
> But it is probably still a waste of time arguing about the terms.

Yes.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#68860

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>> 
>> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
>> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
>> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
>
> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> "software piracy".

"Piracy" is a commonly used term for copyright infringement.
You made several posts saying simply that it's "never piracy" before
you got around to letting anyone know what point you were making
(that you disagree with the way the word is used).

I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
about C++*.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#68866

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:50:55 -0700
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
> >>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
> >> 
> >> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> >> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
> >> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
> >
> > Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> > "software piracy".
> 
> "Piracy" is a commonly used term for copyright infringement.
> You made several posts saying simply that it's "never piracy" before
> you got around to letting anyone know what point you were making
> (that you disagree with the way the word is used).
> 
> I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
> I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
> clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
> about C++*.

A fair point as regards topicality, but any C++ source code is a
protected work under copyright, and both (a) commercial exploitation of
that code, and (b) protection of open source code, depends on effective
copyright protection.  On point (b), the GPL (copyleft) would be
worthless without effective controls on copying.

Proprietary code may also be protected by patents which is another
kettle of fish.  But the topic is sort-of on topic, particularly given
the original posting which prompted it.

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

#69059

On 10/1/2019 9:22 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:50:55 -0700
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
>>>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>>>>
>> I'm not saying that piracy is or is not an appropriate term.
>> I'm saying that you wasted everyone's time by not making your point
>> clearly, and by continuing this off-topic discussion *which is not
>> about C++*.
> 
> A fair point as regards topicality, but any C++ source code is a
> protected work under copyright, and both (a) commercial exploitation of
> that code, and (b) protection of open source code, depends on effective
> copyright protection.  On point (b), the GPL (copyleft) would be
> worthless without effective controls on copying.

Indeed, copyright law no fun, but still it is of interest to any 
software programmer, so even if it is not specific to C++, the 
occasional discussion on the matter can be accepted.
Even more since this is slippery subject, wherein one can get easily 
mistaken, if judging only from the point of view of common sense.

> 
> Proprietary code may also be protected by patents which is another
> kettle of fish.  But the topic is sort-of on topic, particularly given
> the original posting which prompted it.
> 

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

#68789

Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:

>> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
>> intellectual property.
> 
> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?

Fun fact: in my jurisdiction, downloading music, movies or ebooks is 
completely legal. Only sharing (therefore, downloading with torrents 
qualify) is not. For some reason it's different only with computer 
programs and games.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

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

#68851

On 30 Sep 2019 14:47:24 GMT
queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) wrote:
> Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> >> intellectual property.
> > 
> > Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> 
> Fun fact: in my jurisdiction, downloading music, movies or ebooks is 
> completely legal. Only sharing (therefore, downloading with torrents 
> qualify) is not. For some reason it's different only with computer 
> programs and games.

Then you are not in the EU or North America.  As regards the EU, the
current EU Copyright Directive is Directive 2019/790, supplementing
Directive 2001/29/EC, and would preclude these things.

Elsewhere, I am surprised that downloading books and movies is legal
under the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties but if you
tell me it is, so be it.  I also can't see what difference it makes
whether it is propagated by a torrent or not.  Are you in China?

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

#68858

Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Then you are not in the EU or North America.

I'm in Poland, which unfortunately is part of the EU.

> As regards the EU, the current EU Copyright Directive is Directive 
> 2019/790, supplementing Directive 2001/29/EC, and would preclude these 
> things.

I don't know about EU laws, but Polish law allows it.

http://www.copyright.gov.pl/media/download_gallery/Act%20on%20Copyright%20and%20Related%20Rights.pdf

See articles 23 and 116.

> I also can't see what difference it makes whether it is propagated by 
> a torrent or not.

I don't know details of the bittorrent protocol, but it's widely agreed 
that if you use it to download a file, you're inherently sharing it. Maybe 
there are (modified?) clients that allow you to only download without 
uploading even a tiny bit...

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

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

#68861

On 01 Oct 2019 16:10:09 GMT
queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) wrote:
> Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Then you are not in the EU or North America.
> 
> I'm in Poland, which unfortunately is part of the EU.
> 
> > As regards the EU, the current EU Copyright Directive is Directive 
> > 2019/790, supplementing Directive 2001/29/EC, and would preclude these 
> > things.
> 
> I don't know about EU laws, but Polish law allows it.
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov.pl/media/download_gallery/Act%20on%20Copyright%20and%20Related%20Rights.pdf
> 
> See articles 23 and 116.
> 
> > I also can't see what difference it makes whether it is propagated by 
> > a torrent or not.
> 
> I don't know details of the bittorrent protocol, but it's widely agreed 
> that if you use it to download a file, you're inherently sharing it. Maybe 
> there are (modified?) clients that allow you to only download without 
> uploading even a tiny bit...

Thank you for the link.  However, I cannot see how your summary of the
law in Poland is consistent with it, having regard to the economic
rights given to copyright owners under Division 2 of Chapter 3 and the
permitted use exceptions in Division 3 of that Chapter.  Those
provisions give rise to civil liabilities (Chapter 9), but I note that
the criminal sanctions under Chapter 14 are also somewhat far reaching.
This seems to me to be a relatively unexceptional implementation of
Directive 2001/29/EC, not far distant from the implementation in the UK.
Bittorent seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

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

#68776

>>> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

>> Thanks! I found it online.

> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Effective+Modern+C%2B%2B%22+doctype%3Apdf 
;-)

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

#68616

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) spake the secret code
<d4e294a4-bef9-463a-a8b9-ea4d8d8b40d5@trust.no1> thusly:

>I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11 
>and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have 
>any recommendations?

Some people (not me) don't like Stroustrup's presentation style.  If
you're in that camp, then you might prefer the book by Stanley
Lippman, "C++ Primer".  This is currently in it's 5th edition which
came out 2012 (and claims to be fully updated for the C++11 standard).
There is a 6th edition due out in November 2020, but you probably
don't want to wait that long.

For full coverage of the standard library you might like Josuttis "C++
Standard Library" (get the later edition).

There are also plenty of books focused on specific topics.  For
test-driven development I like Jeff Langr "Modern C++ Programming with
Test-Driven Development".  I'm currently reading "C++ Concurrency in
Action" by Anthony Williams.  I'm liking this book quite a bit.  It
manages to explain the complex topic of concurrency/threads/tasks/locks
in a manner that is clear without being too wordy.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web