What are some good books to learn programming like C++ for beginners and should i start with c++ and if not what books are good for those.
>What are some good books to learn programming like C++
http://blog.udacity.com/2014/01/peter-norvig-teach-yourself-programming.html
>should i start with c++
No. Not unless you have a specific reason to use it over every other language.
>if not what books are good for those
see pic
>>51396023
im learning c++ as a first language. why shouldnt i? what other magical language js better?
>>51396053
>why shouldnt i?
Because you won't have enough experience with anything else in order to understand C++'s flaws. C++ shouldn't be avoided by a beginner because it's "too hard", I'm sure there are many people starting out who are smart enough to handle what's generally demanded of you by the language to get shit done. Its that C++ is designed in a really stupid way, but a beginner, not understanding what's wrong because they know nothing else, will assume that because it was created by people smarter than they are, that the way things work in C++ is the way things must or should be and that mastering it is simply a matter of powering through any difficulty they encounter.
There are many ignorant C++ programmers (or there used to be far more when it was the only well supported mainstream alternative for so many tasks) who place great value in being a 'guru', understanding the ins and outs of the strange mess that C++ is, without being aware of how much better things can be when you have a better grasp of language fundamentals. Whether you understand pure C, D, Ruby, Lisp, Smalltalk, C#, etc. this knowledge will allow you to avoid doing stupid shit in C++.
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus
>>51396270
so c or C#
>>51396549
C is actually a good place to start with, I think. No OOP bullshit - straight forward approach to the problems
Would a lisp like scheme or emacs be ok to start with?
>>51398243
>C is actually a good place to start with, I think.
yes agreed, learn c first, it will stand you in good stead.
>No OOP bullshit - straight forward approach to the problems
well, i wouldnt say OOP is "bullshit" far from it but its a good idea to learn the basics first. which c will teach.
>>51398373
unless your circumstances are unusual i wouldnt.
if you're just planning to be a programmer its a good idea to go with the basics. plus, not too many list jobs out there.
>>51398454
>scheme
>not the basics
>>51398414
OoP is not at all bullshit, it is in fact an incredibly elegant way of handling many problems. The ways C++ bolts it onto C on the other hand, is.
>>51396270
My first semester cs course at my states university is teaching us first with c++
>>51398466
yeah i get what you're saying, lisp is pure, i meant it from the perspective of the kind of programming languages you're most likely to come across. c is kind of the ur-language of most everything else out there in common use.
so its basic in that sense.
>>51398479
>OoP is not at all bullshit, it is in fact an incredibly elegant way of handling many problems.
indeed.
>The ways C++ bolts it onto C on the other hand, is.
hmm maybe, but you have to remember the situation at the time, there was no viable oo language for large, difficult, engineering tasks.
it was a godsend at the time. tho i do think it started to get out of hand around the time templates were introduced and then the stl just made things worse.
if c is a good start what books are best to study off of for it.
>>51399462
well the past couple of generations of programmers have found the k&r book to be most useful.
