Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

C++ Tutorials

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 18:49

hey prog

I'm starting my degree in a few weeks and I know that at some point I'll start to learn C, I have little programming experience, Just Pascal, Basic, some web languages and was wondering if you knew of any on-line tutorials?

I swear I found a site which had C++ video tutorials but I managed to lose it, can you help me out D:

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 19:01

Read K&R. Forget about C++.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 19:04

>>2

Reading it, just wanted something where I could watch how other people would do it because I'm a retard

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 19:09

>>3
Online video tutorials are very unlikely to teach you anything but bad practices.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 20:16

Find a decent paper or HTML tutorial and follow through that. Having video is not necessarily better; indeed, it's often worse.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 21:51

>>2
This is the only thing you should read if you want to learn C (besides the C standard itself.)
>>4
True, the only thing worth watching and learning from would be the SICP lectures.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 22:00

If you want to learn C, learn C.  C++ is a lot different then C.  If you want to learn and OOP you can go with C++, although Java and C# are good places to start too. (You can also get Visual Studio through Microsoft's DreamSpark if you plan to go into C/C++/C# as a student which is a great IDE.)

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-16 22:15

>>2
Listen to this man

>>3
Then perhaps you need to learn programming, not C or Befunge or whatever, i.e. learn to think of algorithms and procedures to perform tasks, and C is not a particularly nice language for that as you have to deal with a lot of low-level stuff.

>>4
Except SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:31

>>7
What kind of lunatic would learn OOP in one of those languages? Use Smalltalk if you want to get the real flavor of it, or CLOS to get real power.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:36

>>9
No, do not learn OOP with 20 year old technology. Java would be better, C++  less so, and C# shouldn't be an option.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:41

>>10 is either trolling or doesn't really know real OOP

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:42

>>9
Because they are actually languages modern days can both use and build from.  I agree that Java would be the best, it is what I learned and sets both a good foundation for OOP and can be used as a foundation for C++ and C#, not to mention there is a wealth of information on the internet and in book regarding Java. 

I don't see why anyone would want to learn a language they really would have practical use in outside of the classroom.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:54

>>12
Er, is it just me or did I suggest Smalltalk and Common Lisp, quite possibly the two most practical languages created to date? They are certainly "languages modern days can both use and build from", whatever the hell that may mean. Now, it may be somewhat difficult (although possible) to find someone to pay you to write code in these two languages, so it's useful to learn all those poor imitators. But you'd be nuts to learn OOP from a confused mess like Java, C#, or, worst, Sepples, when Smalltalk is right there waiting for you.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 0:57

Squeak, FTW

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 1:07

>>14
Worst UI in existance, for 12 years and running.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 1:12

>>13
How are they practical?  I wouldn't expect you to program much, if any, real solutions in Smalltalk outside of educational purposes.  Maybe you just learned Java from a bad source, but they encompass modern OOP and are relatively simple (it was the second language I've learned and picked it up in a couple weeks).  Java is simple to learn and use, especially with the JVM, and because it uses similar syntax as C#/C++ it lets you learn three of the most widely used OO programming languages.

I guess if you don't feel confident about your programming ability and are afraid that you won't be able to pick up both OOP concepts and Java's syntax at the same time, you could choose Smalltalk, but I just don't see the point in learning SmallTalk just to later learn Java/C#/C++.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 2:10

>>16
Do you know anything about those languages? Are you not aware that a programmer magically becomes more productive when freed from the idiocy of your so-called "modern" languages? I don't know where you got the idea that Smalltalk or Lisp isn't suitable for programming "real solutions", but they were both used to write real operating systems (and all the programs to run on them) before Sepples was even invented. Ever heard of a little thing called the GUI? That was Smalltalk. And Lisp machines were not far behind.

Let me clue you in: contemporary OOP lags far behind Smalltalk or CLOS. Which is sad, considering Smalltalk had been doing it for years by the time your modern languages came along with their half-assed imitations. If you learn "modern" OOP you're learning a stone-age subset of OOP, and an artificially stone-age subset at that—OOP was more advanced when invented than your overcomplicated, wimpy "state of the art" languages.

The bottom line is that you should be thanking the programming gods that Smalltalk and Lisp haven't gone anywhere, because all the popular languages are tremendous steps backwards in every way. You can accuse me of not understanding Java if you like (and wouldn't I be missing a lot if I didn't), but you patently don't understand Smalltalk or Lisp, which not only makes you look a little unqualified for this discussion, but is also a MORTAL SIN. The point of learning Smalltalk (no CamelCase faggotry here) or Lisp is to clearly understand the concepts involved without the bullshit a "modern" language foists on you, to learn the techniques that "modern" languages either fail to support or make stupidly difficult, and to have a secret weapon you can use anytime you actually need to get results (as in: flexible, correct, concise programs) fast.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 2:23

>>17
Believe me, I understand Smalltalk and CLOS.  I never said Smalltalk wasn't suitable for programming, nor did I say that it didn't help change what programming has become today.  I think you feel the need to defend the languages to the point where you are creating arguments with no one disagreeing.

Obviously you feel the need to act like Smalltalk is the greatest thing, but I was just pointing out that if he is in an academic environment in hopes of starting a career in a field which involves programming, I feel that he will find these "shitty-modern" languages much more useful seeing as they are used MUCH more.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 3:44

>>18
I don't believe you. You said you wouldn't expect me to program "real solutions" outside of educational purposes in one of those languages. I took that to mean that you don't consider them usable for such a purpose. No? Or did you mean that the only reason to create "real solutions" (which I assume is ENTERPRISE-ese for a computer program intended for serious use) is if you are paid by someone else to do it? In which case, fie on you.

In either case, your basic premise, that it is best to learn the minimum required to be hired as a programmer (c.f. "...I just don't see the point in learning SmallTalk just to later learn Java/C#/C++." — >>16) rather than learning the maximum possible in order to be a good programmer, is stupid.

And I didn't say that Smalltalk "help[ed to] change what programming has become today" (what kind of pansy statement is that, anyway?). I said that programming today is but the merest shit-encrusted husk of what Smalltalk has had going on for decades. The difference being one of evolution versus total degeneration (it's kind of significant).

I don't feel the need to defend the great languages which arose in the past—but I do feel a great need to speak out against the poor languages of the present (you may now note that I say nothing about the good and great languages of the present). If a person is looking to educate themselves and get a quality tool in the process, your linguistic Morlocks won't cut it. If a person is looking to do the bare minimum to get "PROGRAMMER" stamped on their résumé, by all means, wallow in filth.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 4:08

>>19
I never said to learn the bare minimum to become a programmer, I said it doesn't make sense to learn something just to learn another thing, when you could go straight to the latter and allocate their time on learning other things useful to them.

Clearly you are radically into the idea that new is bad, ignoring all the stuff Java/C++ and #-Languages bring to the table.  To be honest, I think how radically you ridicule obviously useful languages (notice how people have left Smalltalk to program for these other languages obviously supporting they offer things Smalltalk doesn't) shows how jaded your opinion on the subject is.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 4:45

>>20
I never said to learn the bare minimum to become a programmer, I said it doesn't make sense to learn something just to learn another thing, when you could go straight to the latter and allocate their time on learning other things useful to them.
Learn something just to learn another thing? Way to be nebulous. And way to totally miss my secret weapon spiel. I clearly stated that I'm not suggesting that these languages be used only as educational tools. Rather, I'm suggesting that poor languages be used only when you are being compensated for doing so.

So is the "another thing" (perhaps multiple dispatch, perhaps message forwarding, perhaps dynamic code generation) something that could be optimally learned in a language you could imagine me recommending? You think that these things might be worth learning, but it doesn't make sense to start in a context that will give you a good chance to do so? You don't think it might be a good idea not to start with a system based on the umpteenth telephone-game modification of the ur-object-system? That's like telling a new musician to buy a cheap instrument first—you don't understand that it's an investment, of time and effort, in this case, and beginning with poor tools because some irrational person has told you it's in your best interest is not getting started on the right foot. Starting with the more flexible system lets you earn perspective from the get-go. Starting with the strait-jacket strait-jackets your mind.

Clearly you are radically into the idea that new is bad
Did I not specifically deny this? You need to read before you reply. For example, I think Haskell and Factor and Qi are pretty neat, and there are plenty of modern languages which don't plumb the depths of abomination that your pals do.

notice how people have left Smalltalk
I put that down to abject marketing failure. Not that many people were actually Smalltalkers to begin with, nor could count on having Smalltalk available on their target machine.

these other languages obviously supporting they offer things Smalltalk doesn't
Name them. You're asserting that popular things are good. Do you really want to tell me that the majority of the human race has good taste?

Name: 19 2008-08-17 5:24

>>20
Java was designed with the express purpose of being easy for the plentiful C* programmers of the mid-to-late '90s to pick up. It did this by the means of superficially familiar syntax and dumbed-down semantics; it didn't feature anything that wasn't already implemented at least a decade earlier in Smalltalk or Common Lisp.

C# is getting gradually less useless, but I still don't see it `bringing anything to the table'. Could you elaborate?

C++ is a bad joke and shouldn't even be discussed in the context of OOP, as it doesn't actually have much to do with it except for using OO terminology for its silly `object system'.

The most important thing about learning a new programming language is how it affects the way you think about programming. By not learning languages with the greatest available expressive power you're deliberately constraining your thinking. It's easy to map your knowledge of more expressive languages to less powerful ones, but lacking the notation provided by the former, it's hard to think outside the small box provided by the latter.

OT: do you realize how silly your overuse of words `clearly' and `obviously' makes you sound? Your posts are like a textbook examples of terrible Internet argumentation.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 6:12

lol u guys

u can learn OOP in 5 minutes

jesus tittyfucking christ it's not rocket science

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 6:40

>>23
You can learn lambda calculus in 5 minutes, but it takes years to understand it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 8:30

>>10,12
Don't listen to this mans.

OP, if you want to learn OOP, try a decently powerful object system. For example, one of: Smalltalk, Common Lisp+CLOS, Python, Ruby. But if you can't do C, maybe you should learn programming anything first; OOP will make it harder.

>>12
I don't see why anyone would want to learn a language they really would have practical use in outside of the classroom.
1. Because you want to learn seriously and be a decent programmer, not a spoiled toy programmer with a toy language. You want to learn the correct abstractions properly, and know how to use them, even when in practice you're forced to deal with shitty languages such as Java or C++.
2. Because what's commonly used outside the classroom today tends to suck and it's rather easy to do once you're a real programmer.
3. Because you can brag about it at /prog.

>>17
I agree with this man word by word.

>>18
I don't believe you either. What the heck? A Smalltalk and Lisp programmer who wants >>1 to learn Java or C++? Either you are a sadist, didn't achieve Satori, or are just an ENTERPRISE MULTI-TIER BUSINESS TURNKEY SOLUTION SYNERGY PROVIDER. Either way, do not want.

>>20
>　I never said to learn the bare minimum to become a programmer, I said it doesn't make sense to learn something just to learn another thing, when you could go straight to the latter and allocate their time on learning other things useful to them.
Yay, you're the kind of guy that advices people to get out of school and start working on McDonalds already; you'll start making money fast! Will you want fries with that?

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 8:39

Why is sepples-style OOP considered so awful? What do objects in CLOS have that's better, for example?

(Just wondering, and personally I use C++ because of some visualization & data acquisition libraries which I cannot live without - not by distate for LISP or Smalltalk)

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 8:48

>>26
Dynamic, powerful, meta-object-protocol and more.

Sepples/Java-like OOP is just an ugly hack made to look like OOP.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 8:57

CLOS isn't OOP.  It has no encapsulation, multimethod dispatch is NOT object oriented (messages to a destination object), and it has no notion of enforcing interfaces (although that might technically be demanded by OO proper).  It's quite powerful, but it's different from OO.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 9:01

If you faggots are talking about practical productivity, you really can't beat Java, because the basic fact is that this shitty language has fuckwin awesome libraries that do everything under the sun.  Lisp is all about roll-your-own shit, which is a total waste of time if there already exist things that do what you want.  Yeah, it's great when doing something never done before, but when you need to talk internet protocols, read file formats, channel I/O, do graphics, etc, Lisp doesn't have all that shit standardized and implemented without playing the Russian roulette of trying random libs off the net.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 9:47

>>28
Faggot. What you call "encapsulation" is for faggots; lern 2 document. Multimethods? You wish you had that in whatever toy language you are using. Enforcing interfaces? Now that's real faggot material; congratulations, you have an ass the size of Mordor. The interface and casting hell is the number one reason (of a long list of reasons) why I hate Java. Keep juggling types, I'll keep getting stuff done.

>>29
If you faggots are talking about practical productivity, you really can't beat Java, because the basic fact is that this shitty language has fuckwin awesome libraries that do everything under the sun.
Java? Productive? What have you been smoking? Java's standard library is so tremendously piss ugly that sometimes you spend less time reimplementing what you want than learning how to instance four fucking classes and obtain three "singletons" to do any piece of shit triviality you wanted. If you want real productivity - the stuff you need and the way you need it (a quick peek at the doc and you're already using it), try Perl or Python.

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 10:00

>>30

Useless and dumb faggot. Ignore it and it will go away to his toy languages.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 10:06

>>31

Shut up, namefag.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 10:34

>>30
lrn2read, fuckface.  I didn't say CLOS sucked, I said it wasn't OO.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 10:35

>>29
>has fuckwin awesome libraries that do everything under the sun

That was a great pun, I laughed out loud.

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 10:35

>>32,30
Same dickface.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 10:47

>>35
Get out

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 10:52

>>36
sage and fail

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 12:43

>>37
sage and irony

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 12:58

>>38
sage and fail

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:07

>>39
sage and irony

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:09

>>40
sage and win

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:11

sage doesn't work like that.

back to /b/, please

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 13:12

sage the top

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:13

>>43
Shut up.

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 13:27

sage the top

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:35

>>44
Shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 13:38

>>45,46
No. You shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 14:44

Woah. This thread went downhill the second that namefag appeared.

Name: @FULLFORCE 2008-08-17 14:52

Hai guise, what's going on in this thread?

Name: Sageing fail since 1463 2008-08-17 15:16

sage this shit

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 16:21

>>30
The interface and casting hell
You're doing it wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 16:58

>>33
lrn2understand, fuckface. I didn't say CLOS didn't suck, I said your idea of OO is as shitty as your post.

>>35
No, I was gone.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 17:59

>>52
lrn2OO.  CLOS != OO

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 18:54

>>53
No, you're the faggot. Java, C++ != OO. OO = Smalltalk, CLOS, Python, Ruby, etc. Dynamic languages where every value is an automatically managed memory cell with an associated dictionary of properties and/or methods. Everything is a first-class value, and everything is, as modernly said, duck-typed.

Stroustroup little hack for C is not proper OOP, nor is Gosling's C++-- toy.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-17 19:27

>>54
*cough* Simula *cough*

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 0:41

>Then perhaps you need to learn programming, not C or Befunge or whatever, i.e. learn to think of algorithms and procedures to perform tasks

What is the best way to do this?

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 1:02

>>29
If you faggots are talking about practical productivity, you really can't beat Java, because the basic fact is that this shitty language has fuckwin awesome libraries that do everything under the sun.
I'm sure you'll learn a lot with those.

Lisp is all about roll-your-own shit, which is a total waste of time if there already exist things that do what you want.
Who says it's all about that?

Yeah, it's great when doing something never done before, but when you need to talk internet protocols, read file formats, channel I/O, do graphics, etc, Lisp doesn't have all that shit standardized and implemented without playing the Russian roulette of trying random libs off the net.
You've got to pick out libraries in every language. While your idea of what you can actually find libraries (or bindings) for is hopelessly skewed, you have a bit of a point that there are probably fewer libraries for reading and manipulating file types. And if there's one thing that dooms a program, it's not having ready-made libraries for reading every type of file under the sun.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 1:18

>>56
Read SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 4:50

>>54

OOP does not mean forced OOP, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 6:45

>>59
OOPs, my mistake.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 9:00

>>54
So where in CLOS is the notion of sending messages to objects?  It's not OO.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 9:25

>>61
Where's the notion of sending messages to objects in Sepples? Yes people call that OO. CLOS is inside out. You're picking on it for not being about message passing when it's the only OO system to be neither Smalltalk nor a perversion of Smalltalk, yet actually bring good stuff to the table. It's got inheritance and dispatch based on type, which are the two crucial things.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 9:42

>>62
You are such a fucking moron.
>it's the only OO system to be neither Smalltalk nor a perversion of Smalltalk, yet actually bring good stuff to the table.
Yes, it brings good stuff to the table, but it's DIFFERENT, NON-OO stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 9:43

>>62
and sending messages to objects in Sepples is object[.|->]function(...).  Multimethod dispatch eliminates the notion of "target object", and is not an OO message.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 9:52

>>62
You mean Simula or a perversion of Simula, like Smalltalk.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 10:05

>>63
Uh, I think the implication there was that you aren't the sole arbiter of what OO is (I am), and that multiple dispatch is more OO than apple pie. That would be the good stuff it brings to the table, see?

>>64
No, calling methods in Sepples pays lip service to the notion of message passing as a way to excuse itself for using a notation that doesn't support multiple dispatch. The language itself conflates methods and messages.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 10:16

>>66
Well, I'm done trying to beat some sense into you.  CLOS is an object system with some OO stuff, but takes a different branch.  Have fun living your own splintered view of the world.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 10:26

>>66
No, calling methods in Sepples pays lip service to the notion of message passing as a way to excuse itself for using a notation that doesn't support multiple dispatch.
So does your pet example Smalltalk.

The language itself conflates methods and messages.
No, it doesn't. Objects of different types will respond differently to the same (virtual) method call on the same reference (the same message sent to them through that reference). How is this a ``conflation'' of methods and messages?

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-18 11:21

>>59
Nor the lack thereof, faggot.

>>61,63,64,67
That's not the essence of OOP, faggot. OOP is not about calling functions messages, nor it's about using a.f(b) instead of f(a, b), nor it's about hiding properties under method calls. Learn what OOP is really about; until you do, shut up.

>>65
A corruption of Simula?

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 11:04

>>69
A corruption of Simula what?

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 11:07

>>70
A corruption of Simula, which stands for Some Idiots Make yoU Laugh Aloud.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 11:11

>>71
LOL

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 12:01

>>1
Use Java, stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 14:06

Java: More complicated than c++ and the slowest language in existence. The only reason people use it is because it's cross-platform and works as both an applet and an executable.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 14:10

>>74
Just passed elementary school.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 14:23

>>74
slowest language in existence
I believe you're thinking of Ruby.

cross-platform
Hardly. Have you ever tried to get Sun's JVM running on a FreeBSD box? Licensing issues (and other related faggotry) make it a goddamn nightmare. Not to mention every JVM has it's own stupid quirks which make shit break if they were developed and debugged with any other JVM.

an applet
No, people use Flash (and maybe Silverlight) for that these days.

an executable
hax my anus.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 14:23

>>74
Ruby is slower than Java, and OS-agnostic C is far more cross-platform than Java could hope to be.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 15:36

>>77
Enjoy your open-source shit.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 16:14

>>78
Enjoy my penis in your anus.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 16:42

>>78
I will, along with my job.

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 17:08

>>96 YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-08-19 17:47

>>81
I smirked.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-06 6:15


Better THAN YOU GUYS   because I saw   it in a   sequential manner but   all at once   You suddenly realize   you know every   possible process and   you are no   freindly man I   had this wicked   amazing program that   can query its.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-06 11:59

Libraries nowadays that handle memoization of recursive   functions for you   Now stfu and   DO YOUR OWN   made up processor   How many bits   can it access   What kind of   annoying Anyone know   any other internet   but can only   produce pure refined   crap nothing else   You are giving   a false sense   of security that   their text is   so bloated and   illegible that if   I ever try   to write the   code for compare?

Name: Trollbot9000 2009-07-01 10:38

Implemented in c in conjunction with your  examples You compare  your processor with.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-17 1:27

Xarn is a bad boyfriend

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-31 19:52

<-- check em dubz

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-02 22:33

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 17:10

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -