«

wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I also suggest as a reference Herb Schildt's Complete Reference
> to C (check out herbschildt.com)
>
> But the book that really opened my eyes to the art of programming
> and algorithms was Mastering Algorithms with C ISBN
> 10:1-56592-453-3 ISBN 13: 9781565924536.
>
> If you really want to study algorithms in more depth, allow me
> also to suggest Algorithms in C parts 1-5, by Robert Sedgewick.

Sedgewick is good, I don't know about Mastering Algorithms, but
anything by Schildt is fundamentally wrong and will give you evil
habits. It is generally known as BullSchildt around here. You
might want to get the ISO standard as the ultimate reference.
Search for N869 and/or N1124. A well formatted text version
suitable for quoting and easy searching with less is available,
bzip2 compressed, at:

<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/>

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Keith Thompson said:

> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
>> said:
> [...]
>> "The C Programming Language", 2nd edition, by Kernighan and Ritchie, is
>> an excellent reference.
>
> It's probably a better tutorial than a reference.

That's probably a matter of taste.

> "C: A Reference Manual", 5th edition, by Harbison and Steele, is an
> excellent reference.

I have both (well, okay, 4th edition of H&S), but I invariably look stuff up
in K&R. Having said that, it may simply be because K&R guesses what I'm
looking for, and tends to fall open at the appropriate page, whereas H&S is
rather more aloof and makes me look stuff up in the index.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

vlsidesign wrote:
> I am a newbie and going through "The C programming language" by
> Kernighan & Richie on my own time (I'm not a programmer but I want to
> learn because it can save me time in my normal job, and it is kind of
> fun). As I go through the book, I seek to do all the exercises because
> they are very useful, and good, but it seems like I am just stumbling
> through somewhat. In particular, I don't really know how to think about
> "catching errors", or how my thought process should be. Right now, I
> just try to come up with an algorithm by following the book and
> improvising. I'll then try to test my code by throwing different things
> at it (for instance, different types of input in different forms) and
> see if it breaks, I then try to figure out why it broke and then patch
> in the fix. My time is somewhat limited and I cannot at this time take
> a C class at a junior college, but I was wondering if this is just part
> of learning? Do I just need to continue reading various texts,
> practicing, and studying code and I will acquire error checking and
> more robust code over time? Any suggestions, hints, words of advice,
> would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much.
>

You might try your hand at functional programming. You should
realize this, if anything else, that C is not a very expressive
language.
Give that some thought while you learn a language like Scheme or
Haskell.

--
aegis

aegis a écrit :
>
> You might try your hand at functional programming. You should
> realize this, if anything else, that C is not a very expressive
> language.
> Give that some thought while you learn a language like Scheme or
> Haskell.

Can you please give ma an example of commercial or
public domain software that is written in Haskell or in
Scheme?

I mean a substantial software system like a word processor
or a spreadsheet, a network application, a mail reader,
something like that.

Thanks

jacob navia wrote:
> aegis a écrit :
> >
> > You might try your hand at functional programming. You should
> > realize this, if anything else, that C is not a very expressive
> > language.
> > Give that some thought while you learn a language like Scheme or
> > Haskell.
>
> Can you please give ma an example of commercial or
> public domain software that is written in Haskell or in
> Scheme?
>
> I mean a substantial software system like a word processor
> or a spreadsheet, a network application, a mail reader,
> something like that.
>

DrScheme is mostly written in scheme.

--
aegis

aegis a écrit :
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>>aegis a écrit :
>>
>>>You might try your hand at functional programming. You should
>>>realize this, if anything else, that C is not a very expressive
>>>language.
>>>Give that some thought while you learn a language like Scheme or
>>>Haskell.
>>
>>Can you please give ma an example of commercial or
>>public domain software that is written in Haskell or in
>>Scheme?
>>
>>I mean a substantial software system like a word processor
>>or a spreadsheet, a network application, a mail reader,
>>something like that.
>>
>
>
> DrScheme is mostly written in scheme.
>
> --
> aegis
>

I meant APPLICATION software.

An application that does something, for instance
a spreadsheet, a word processor, whatever.

jacob navia wrote:
>
> I meant APPLICATION software.
>
> An application that does something, for instance
> a spreadsheet, a word processor, whatever.

Last I checked, development tools counted as application software.
Since you're applying unknown and unnecessary restrictions to prove
your point, perhaps you could define what you mean by "whatever" in
your list of acceptable applications.

jacob navia wrote:
> aegis a écrit :
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> aegis a écrit :
>>>
>>>> You might try your hand at functional programming. You should
>>>> realize this, if anything else, that C is not a very expressive
>>>> language.
>>>> Give that some thought while you learn a language like Scheme or
>>>> Haskell.
>>>
>>> Can you please give ma an example of commercial or
>>> public domain software that is written in Haskell or in
>>> Scheme?
>>>
>>> I mean a substantial software system like a word processor
>>> or a spreadsheet, a network application, a mail reader,
>>> something like that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> DrScheme is mostly written in scheme.
>>
>> --
>> aegis
>>
>
> I meant APPLICATION software.
>
> An application that does something, for instance
> a spreadsheet, a word processor, whatever.

- Sawfish (window manager)
- Emacs (real-time text editor) <- GNUS (mail client) <- emms <-
erc and so on. (Emacs and all the software written on top of it
with elisp make for a very substantial software system that's
well beyond any of you requirements ).
- AutoCAD uses lisp modules.


--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

Nelu wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
> >
> > I meant APPLICATION software.
> >
> > An application that does something, for instance
> > a spreadsheet, a word processor, whatever.
>
> - Sawfish (window manager)
> - Emacs (real-time text editor) <- GNUS (mail client) <- emms <-
> erc and so on. (Emacs and all the software written on top of it
> with elisp make for a very substantial software system that's
> well beyond any of you requirements ).

Isn't elisp a different dialect of Lisp from scheme ?

Spiros Bousbouras a écrit :
> Nelu wrote:
>
>>jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>>I meant APPLICATION software.
>>>
>>>An application that does something, for instance
>>>a spreadsheet, a word processor, whatever.
>>
>>- Sawfish (window manager)
>>- Emacs (real-time text editor) <- GNUS (mail client) <- emms <-
>>erc and so on. (Emacs and all the software written on top of it
>>with elisp make for a very substantial software system that's
>>well beyond any of you requirements ).
>
>
> Isn't elisp a different dialect of Lisp from scheme ?
>

yes, but it is the same "family".
Emacs itself is written in....

YES!!!!
YOU GUESSED IT!!!

But they have a small little "extensions" language (like
MatchCad), and many others where lisp shines.

I am NOT against lisp (as I am not "against" any
computer language, but in the real world there is
very little space apparently for this languages.

Scripting languages like perl/ruby/python, are
another stuff.