>>1
Have you read your Sam's Teach yourself C++ in 21 Days today?
Name:
Balder Han Solo!SICPxP9vdo2008-02-14 22:20
ONE WORD: READ MY TRIP
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 0:51
>>1
You will need:
1 unsharpened pencil, #2 (HB is fine).
1 pencil sharpener for said pencil.
1 nostril (yours).
Sharpen pencil as sharp as you can get it, but make sure not to diminish its length much. Place the sharpened end in your nostril and deliver one sharp blow to the other end with your palm. If you can still think, hit it again. Repeat as necessary.
Congratulations: you are now eligable to be a C++ programmer.
"The Annotated C++ Reference Manual" by Bjarne Stroustrup is designed to be an easy read and very accessible to those wanting to learn the language.
I suggest you buy it immediately.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 13:48
>>16
Years ago, some fucker in the bookstore told me the same thing, and I believed him. Took me years to realize that not only is Sepples terrible and convoluted, that book is the exact same way. I'd be mad at the guy, but I'm pretty sure he was serious.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:03
WALK BEFORE YOU RUN
LEARN C BEFORE C++
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:03
WALK BEFORE YOU RUN
LEARN ASSEMBLY BEFORE C
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:04
WALK BEFORE YOU RUN
LEARN TO WALK BEFORE YOU RUN
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:11
Just read SICP, use LISP and write bloated, shitty programs. It's not like anybody will ever use them. Not even you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:28
>>28
Actually, that is what Scheme (Haskell) is for -- writing quick hacks for yourself, that will process so small data that optimisation is irrelevant. Programmer's time is more valuable than computer's time, a Haskelite might say.
Following on from the Christmas favorite top 10 most popular OCaml programs, here is a list of the 10 most popular open source Haskell programs according to the Debian and Ubuntu package popularity contests: according to the Debian and Ubuntu package popularity contests: Debian and Ubuntu package popularity contests Debian and Ubuntu Ubuntu
That means that programmer's time has some ``load value'' -- much smaller than the one of computer's time. If programmer's time's ``load value'' were 0, it would always be wiser to write a quick program. In reality, you can sometimes write a program quickly, but it would be so slow that it would have been better if the programmer had took time to make it better -- the computer would execute it much more faster, more than compensating the time taken to write it.
Oh fuck I suck at explaining.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-16 19:35
>>54
oh damn, I am so sleepy that I even fail at BBCode.