I've been wanting to learn C++ for a while, but none of the schools around here teach it and I haven't found anything online that I can easily get myself into.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 1:37
I recommend Prata's C++ Primer Plus if you have previous programming experience. If you want to find a different book (maybe you are new to programming), check with the ACCU for book recommendations: http//accu.org/... if the book is on their list, it's good. You can read their review and then decide pick it up based on this information.
I'm looking towards this one, can anyone say if it's any good?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 9:27
Thinking in C++ ( http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e.html ) is a great book too and it's free to download in HTML format. Grab the 2 volumes and the source code, I learned almost everything I know in C++ from this book.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 9:28
C++ .... kill yourself instead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 9:32 (sage)
>>6
I write C++ for a living, I don't know what's so bad about it, can you give us some arguments Mr. Troll? No? Of course you can't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 9:40
>>6 may be over the top, but I share the sentiment.
C++ is an massive language, and is only really usable if you stick to a very small subset of its capabilities. I'm still blind from the time I dared to poke in the guts of iostream.
It's better than Java, but that's not saying much.
I hate all of software engineering. It's one of the most boring things in the fucking world. i'd rather go on an extensive expedition to a rain forest to manually measure the height of its trees than have a programming job.
Yes, WTF are you doing on this board? Go buy a plane ticket for the rain forest.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 20:24
Well, i think the best way to learn a language is to get a very basic program (hello world) and then starting to poke around inside it with a refference book/page availible.
and then, when you have mastered the basics, you begin reading books for more knowlige about structs, classes, optimizing and sutch.
>>7 you sound like you have programmed in java for over one day, or almost equaly bad C# !
>>12
No, I've seen pretty much everything software engineering has to offer. I've also been around programmers a lot. I find them retarded. These days I prefer physicists and mathematicians. At least their work isn't like putting LEGOs together (i.e. programming)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 6:47
>>14 At least their work isn't like putting LEGOs together (i.e. Java programming)
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 8:27
>>15
[quote]At least their work isn't Java programming[/quote]
Well, I cant agree on the that physicists are not putting LEGO together, just look at the string theory, or whatever alternative;
"Hmm, that didn't work.. what if we put this (pice) here?"
Same thing with mathematicans, math is all about putting things together or apart, no?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 1:38
>>19
true, but their LEGOs don't exist outside their imaginations.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 3:20
>>19
String theory isn't science, it's masturbation. Just Say No to string theory crackpots.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 7:11
LOL, who'd think anti-string theory crackpots would find their way to world4ch.
Do you have an alternative theory? No? Then stfu.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 9:23
>>22
Do you have any idea what string theory claims to be about? No? Then stfu.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 9:24
String theory is about string storage and concatenation, plus regular expressions and parsers, rite?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 10:03
String theory is a theory about life, the Universe, and everything™
>>22
I'm not really 'anti string theory', but not exactly pro either. I'm just waiting for it make a testable prediction of some sort. Until then it isn't very useful.
As for alternatives, I rather like the ideas behind digital physics (but that's probably because I also like computer science). Of course they still haven't produced an actual alternative theory.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 17:08
"digital physics" isn't a theory, it's a philosophical argument. which also happens to be completely useless even if true.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 17:35
>>28
Well, it doesn't have a useful theory yet, but there is a theory: that the easiest way to completely describe the universe is as a cellular automaton.
If someone were to find a cellular automaton in which the actual laws of our universe emerge, then we'd have our Theory of Everything, which would be obviously useful. (Of course this probably won't ever happen.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 18:29
Do you have an alternative theory?
42.
or 37 if faster than light travel is possible, but that's highly unlikely.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 18:43
You realize that string theory hasn't really been tested yet, right?
For all we know, the universe runs on gas juice.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 1:41
>>29
Even if so, it's useless. If time and space are discrete, it's below the plack scale. How will you simulate that?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 7:42
Alright, I'm going to get Stroustrup's book. Should I get the special edition or third edition?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 8:19 (sage)
>>32 If time and space are discrete, it's below the plack scale.
Why?
How will you simulate that?
With a huge computer, obviously. And you don't need to simulate it at large scales, you could still apply Quantum physics, General Relativity, and Newtonian physics where appropriate. Perhaps with some new math you could derive predictions without having to simulate every single bit. Also, it would be nice to know the exact masses of fundamental particles, the actual behaviour of the universe at the smallest scale, etc, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 8:23
Why the hell did this thread stray so far from recommending a book to someone?