Want to learn C++

Sup /prog/? I'm decent at C and know some basic OOP concepts, and decided to learn C++^[1].What is a good book/online tutorial that goes over the advanced features of C++ without being too slow going over the basics? Thanks a lot.

[1] Please, don't whine about how C++ sucks. I'm sorry, but I really don't care what you think about it.

C++ sucks. Thanks you for valuing my opinion.

Sup /prog/? I'm decent at Java and know some basic Web concepts, and decided to learn PHP^[1].What is a good book/online tutorial that goes over the advanced features of PHP without being too slow going over the basics? Thanks a lot.

[1] Please, don't whine about how PHP sucks. I'm sorry, but I really don't care what you think about it.

>>2
Somebody had to say it. But seriously, any good tutorials or books?

OOP sucks
Nothing good has come to CS since SICP

>>4
No, of course not.
Look, do you think people hate Sepples just to spite you? Learn a real fucking language and stop wasting both your time and ours.

>>6
£20 says OP wants to be a game developer

>>6
I want something fast and object-oriented, which language is better?

>>7
No doubt. He should be using either C or some high-level language, then, depending on the type of game.

>>7
Nope, I'm getting tired of trying to emulate OOP with C. Why do you guys hate OOP anyways?

>>1
I'm sorry, but I really don't care what you think about it.
Since you are by your own admission a complete beginner when it comes to Sepples, you should value the opinion of people more knowledgeable on the subject. You don't even know enough about it to know what question you should be asking.

(Hint: it's not ``how I lern ++C?'', but ``Should I''.)

>>10
There's nothing inherently wrong with OOP, and even if there were, Sepples' wrongness goes far beyond what Bjornie Stripstrap thinks passes for it. Sepples isn't an OOP language in any meaningful sense of the word; certainly not more so than C.

>>10
We don't hate OOP, we hate C++. Are you an idiot, or just plain illiterate?

>>1,10
OOP is a red herring.

>>11
I'd like to learn enough C++ to make my own decision instead of listening to /prog/ all the time. I know how to use classes, I just want to learn more features of the language.

>>13
>>5,14 hate it.

So again, what language is better?

C++
OOP
If I were Alan Kay, I'd be fuming right about now.

>>15
Then fucking do so. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ask for /prog/'s guidance if your goal is specifically not to listen to /prog/.

>>16
Anything is better. Even COBOL 2004.
If you really want to learn Sepples-style ``OOP'', try Java. It's a horribly shitty language, but it's better than Sepples. Just don't pretend you know anything about OOP afterwards.
If you want a more sensible language with an entry-level understanding of OOP, Python or Ruby. Their strength isn't necessarily the OOP aspect, but that's besides the point.
If you want real OOP, Smalltalk, obviously. You'd know this already if you were really serious about this.

C++ is really advanced to start with if you don't get OOP.

>>20
Go away.

If you want to learn real OOP, learn CLOS+MOP and Smalltalk.

>>20
C++ doesn't have anything to do with OOP.

>>22
Closet Mop?

Why do you guys hate Sepples?

>>25
If you have been unable to discern the reasons from the vast number of threads on the topic, then I doubt you will understand even if we state it outright.

/prog/'s hatred of C++ is whiny and impotent. There are more aesthetically pleasant programming languages to write in. And there are more intellectually pleasurable programming languages. But C++ -- and there is at least one rider who will foam at the mouth -- is a practical language. It has a wealth of libraries to choose from, not including C libraries that are most often compatible out of the box. Classes and templates (even operator overloading) give programmers options. And it's still close to the metal. Every language has its failings. Every language has bad programmers and bad programs. C++ has a place as it has long demonstrated, and it certainly doesn't have anything to prove to a gaggle of snotty meme-spouters.

I wish I could help you with a book >>1. The best I can do is send you to http://www.51cnnet.net/directory and hope that you can stumble upon what you are looking for.

>>27
While I won't argue against anything you said, I find the biggest problem with Sepples to be that it has too many options. So many, in fact, that the vast majority of programmers learn a subset of the language in which they can be personally productive, but any given two people will inevitably know different such subsets, so whenever working in C++ with someone else, you're bound to come across idioms you're not at all familiar with. It's a huge, huge language, and it's filled with surprises and traps.

C is awesome because it has very few rules, and any competent programmer can get a good grasp of the entire language within a few weeks. While the standard library is perhaps another matter, that's something that can be learned incrementally without the roadblocks that C++ puts into place by forcing people to put down the library documentation and look up core parts of the language.

And in spite of all of its options, C++ is somehow still not very expressive. There's many different ways of doing the same few things that you can do easily enough in C already.

I can finish the same program in Python or Java in half the time it would take to just get a written C++ program to compile.

>>29
And it will perform at half the speed. Imagine that

When your hammer is C++, everything begins to l^o_ok like a thumb.

>>10
If you're doing much emulating of OOP in C, you're doing too much OOP.

>>31
Thanks anon, I lol'd heartily.

>>31
I know enough Sepples that I can relate to that.

>>27
Oh look, we're still pretending all tools are basically equivalent and the guy who chooses a bowl of porridge to hammer in a nail is no less retarded than one who uses an actual hammer.
Attitudes like your are responsible for COBOL, Java schools, and the disappearance of 6.001. Go circle-jerk in /code/ with the rest of the sanctimonious dipshits.

When your hammer is OOP, everything begins to look like its from  hammerspace. And then a skeleton popped out. With a COBOL2004 Enterprise Solution.

Herp derp my name is Bjarni and look at all these ways I provide for you to make your code shit. Herp derp!

>>34
Stop whining. Languages are as much toolboxes as tools; understand which end is which before sputtering about with a broken metaphor like a temperamental jalopy. My attitude is pragmatism; if you think from this follows PROCEDURE DIVISIONs and stubborn adherence to a single language that further shoehorns every problem into a single paradigm, then I cannot help you, because I can only speak and you refuse to listen. And yet what you don't realize that is that you prove my point further still, as just another obtuse programmer with a chip on his shoulder and no insight, awaiting any excuse to complain.

>>37
You are angry. Read
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110577&threadid=110549&roomid=2

faggot

>>37
And this would be why you get called a sanctimonious dipshit.

>>37
if you think from this follows PROCEDURE DIVISIONs and stubborn adherence to a single language that further shoehorns every problem into a single paradigm
Projecting much? Maybe you should try to understand the problems people have with Sepples before trying to argue with them. This just makes it look like you're shouting at the voices in your head.