«

Hi experts,

I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
experience on it.
So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
behind.
But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
master in a short time.
Can anyone give some suggestions?

My background: knowledge of computer science systematically; some
knowledge of C++ object model; familiar with normal C++ usage(C
syntax, STL, etc); a lot of C++ programming experience.

I hope to read the standard because I think the thorough knowledge can
help improve the code quality in case I would be able to do my work in
the best way as the standard assumes.

thomas <> wrote:
> I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
> experience on it.
> So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
> behind.
> But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
> master in a short time.
> Can anyone give some suggestions?

What you are trying to do is a bit like trying to learn to use a
computer by looking at its circuit schematics.

Try Stroustrup's book instead.

On Sep 5, 11:04*am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> thomas <freshtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
> > experience on it.
> > So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
> > behind.
> > But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
> > master in a short time.
> > Can anyone give some suggestions?
>
> * What you are trying to do is a bit like trying to learn to use a
> computer by looking at its circuit schematics.
>
it's really amazing analogy

> * Try Stroustrup's book instead.

Saeed Amrollahi

On Sep 5, 1:25*am, thomas <freshtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi experts,
>
> I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
> experience on it.
Yes. C++ is a complex programming language, of course all programming
languages are more or less complex.
Recently, I tried to use pimpl and virtual Constructor idioms in new
version
of my program. I face with some difficulties and bugs in my
implementation.
I believe it's natural and if I want to use these idioms in other
programming
languages, I'll have more or less same problems.
> So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
> behind.
> But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
> master in a short time.
The FDIS is 1350+ pages. Almost every single day, I refer to standard
document
to learn some details about concepts, it's not good text for learning C
++ programming.
> Can anyone give some suggestions?
>
> My background: knowledge of computer science systematically; some
> knowledge of C++ object model; familiar with normal C++ usage(C
> syntax, STL, etc); a lot of C++ programming experience.
>
I guess you have good knowledge/background.
> I hope to read the standard because I think the thorough knowledge can
> help improve the code quality in case I would be able to do my work in
> the best way as the standard assumes.
My suggestions:
1. Bjarne Stroustrup. The C++ Programming Language, Addison-Wesley,
2000. special edition.
2. Bjarne Stroustrup. Programming: Principles and Practice using C+
+,
Addison-Wesley, 2008.
3. Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo. Accelerated C++, Addison-Wesley,
2000.

Good Luck
-- Saeed Amrollahi

On Sep 5, 9:49*am, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 11:04*am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:> thomas <freshtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
> > > experience on it.
> > > So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
> > > behind.
> > > But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
> > > master in a short time.
> > > Can anyone give some suggestions?
>
> > * What you are trying to do is a bit like trying to learn to use a
> > computer by looking at its circuit schematics.
>
> it's really amazing analogy

and rather wrong. Some languages can have quick readable formal
standards (Algol-60, Pascal, CORAL-66, Scheme) other languages turn
into monsters (Algol-6. C++ is probably somehwre in between. C++ is
a large language there's no way its standard is going to be a wholly
easy read.

> > * Try Stroustrup's book instead.

not really definitive and a bit dated

Juha Nieminen wrote:

> thomas <> wrote:
>> I find the C++ language complex although I already have a lot of
>> experience on it.
>> So I turned to the C++ standard trying to figure out the details
>> behind.
>> But the standard is more than 700 pages with too much information to
>> master in a short time.
>> Can anyone give some suggestions?
>
> What you are trying to do is a bit like trying to learn to use a
> computer by looking at its circuit schematics.

Your comparison isn't very good. A standard definition of a programming
language precisely defines what a language construct does and how it is
employed, and therefore what a programmer must expect from it. This is
exactly what anyone does when he starts to learn a language. Meanwhile, no
one needs to know how to analyse a simple RCL circuit in order to use a
computer, let alone analyse any schematics.

Reading a standard such as ISO 14882 may not be a good idea as a first step
into the language, but it certainly will be an invaluable experience to
those who will ever need take the language seriously, not to mention an
important reference to have in hand.


Rui Maciel

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Juha Nieminen <> spake the secret code
<4e648282$0$2860$> thusly:

> Try Stroustrup's book instead.

Agreed. Stroustrup for learning the basics of the language and some
parts of the standard library.

Get "The C++ Standard Library" by Nicolai Josuttis for good coverage
of the standard library (vector, list, string, etc.).
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Mon, 2011-09-05, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Sep 5, 9:49*am, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 11:04*am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:> thomas <freshtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>> > * Try Stroustrup's book instead.
>
> not really definitive and a bit dated

In which areas is it dated? (Apart from the fact that it doesn't cover
TR1 and C++11.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

On Sep 5, 4:23 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 5, 9:49 am, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
> > > Try Stroustrup's book instead.

> not really definitive and a bit dated

It depends which of Stroustrup's books. His latest is anything
but dated, and is probably the best didactic presentation I've
seen anywhere.

--
James Kanze`

On Sep 6, 11:58*pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 4:23 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:49 am, Saeed Amrollahi <amrollahi.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * * [...]
>
> > > > * Try Stroustrup's book instead.
> > not really definitive and a bit dated
>
> It depends which of Stroustrup's books. *His latest is anything
> but dated, and is probably the best didactic presentation I've
> seen anywhere.
>

I was thinking of The C++ Programming Language