Is this book a meme, or is it actually good?
>>54290826
Yes
>>54290826
Meme, it's now useless. Nobody uses the techniques from this book, unless they're retarded.
Yes, it's a good book. But you have to ask yourself why learn a deprecated language with manual memory management and very limited standard library when plenty of alternatives exist (unless you're writing very low-level software, like a driver or a kernel).
>>54290826
Maybe
I don't know
>>54290826
It's a good book but it assumes you're smart and either already know or can easily grasp basic programming concepts like flow-of-control and data structures.
>>54290905
because a lot of existing software is written in C
because you're in a resource-constrained environment, like an embedded device
because performance is critical for your application and you'll trade away dev time to get it
because its your project, dammit, and you think C is interesting or fun
>>54290826
Can you repeat the question
>>54291072
YOURE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW, YOURE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW, YOURE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW AND YOU'RE NOT SO BIG
>>54290842
I mostly agree.
The book is hopelessly outdated if you want to work on modern codebases, you would just pick up bad habits from it.
It may still be good from a historical perspective though. It's very enlightening and nice to read when you're mastering the fine details of C11.
>>54290826
Where are all the modern "C" books at anyway ?.
>>54291138
you mean books like this?
>>54291108
>hopelessly outdated
If this book was hopelessly outdated, they would have seen fit to release a third edition. In reality, there are very few problems with it which amount to minor details like "don't use the register keyword" and "main should return an integer" which do not invalidate the rest of the book at all.
>>54291188
>they would have seen fit to release a third edition
Ritchie is dead.
>>54291154
What on earth is that?. Not the code, I mean the book.
>>54291207
He died in 2011, while people like Zed Shaw had been saying his book was outdated because it doesn't mention C99s new features like single line comments and variable length arrays (omg just burn the book it's useless now)
>>54291227
Absolute beginner's guide to C by some pretentious faggots who in their example code near the end group themselves with steven king in a "best authors" list
Life is unfair~
>>54291031
>because performance is critical for your application and you'll trade away dev time to get it
That's why C++ exists, and using it correctly prevents many memory management-related bugs and headaches.
All the other reasons are legitimate though.
>>54291456
>C++
lol try again
>>54291474
Fuck off kid.
>>54290826
it's good for learning the basics of procedural programming and what a pointer does
after that move onto a more modern language
>>54290826
The book is a really good overview of the C language. One of C's shortcomings is that it relies heavily on calls to libraries if you're actually trying to get something done. So, after the C Programming Language, you need to read Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment (its more mid level than Advanced.) That'll fill in how you interact with the system now that you know C.
It's a reference, not a traditonal textbook
>>54291188
Doesn't ANSI C having main() return an int?
>>54290826
As much as I like K&R, Ritchie is in a world of his own when it comes to his example code, it's godawful.
