New thread

Best way to learn programming:

1) Learn logic
2) Learn assembly
3) Learn C

At this point, two choices: stick with C or learn whatever high-level languages/paradigms suit what you want to do.

Almost everyone does the exact reverse.  First learn BASIC or Java, then attempt to understand what's going on underneath (and probably never get around to it).

If you go from the bottom up, each step gets easier and there's no mystery hiding what's going on under the hood.

>>34
Built-in mechanisms are written by competent programmers. It's a similar situation to ASM handwritten by a competent programmer being better than its compiler-generated equivalent.
Built-in mechanisms ought to be written by better than a "competent" programmer, but even if I were to accept the proposition that you're capable of doing anything right, you'd be retarded to think that any piece of shit you dash off is going be equal to the amount of care and thoughful optimization that the implementors put into their version. Heck, the compiler may even have special support for standard library versions of things.

What are you on about? This makes no sense.
I know it makes no sense! That's why I pointed it out. The entire post I was quoting was full of nonsense.

>>35
Reinventing the wheel in a slightly different way each time I need a basic data structure is more maintainable than using the standard library.
IHBT

My needs were ultra-light and everyone knows a linked list when they see one.
Everybody who isn't too retarded to be allowed to program knows what's in the standard library too, and they don't have to read your implementation to know how it works.

Both of you, quit programming forever. Or if you're the same person, quit programming forever: you're that bad. Better yet, kill yourself. How is it that we're even having this discussion? I shouldn't have to explain to programmers why the standard library exists.