[ale] C programming books

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Wandered Inn wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
> > Just take advantage of it's easier to use constructs, type
> > safety, great standard library (strings and containers oh my!) and
> > you'll be a good bit further along than with plain old C. Its also
> > much easier for a new programmer to learn than C.
> 
> I disagree, but that's my opinion.  It's not really the language it's
> the paradigm.  If you're not going to program OO, there's no sense in
> going with C++ over C.

	C++ is a multi-paradigm languages (cf. Coplien's "Multi-Paradigm
Design for C++"). You may use it as a better C (with handy new
keywords and type safety), an OO language (ala Java, SmallTalk), a
functional language (ala ML), an efficient and flexible scientific
computation language (replacing FORTRAN), or a combination of the
above. C is a portable assembly language when used as intended. C++
can be that as well (although its lack of a standard ABI sometimes is
a problem). This makes it (C) fine for low level system code (like
Linux kernel and most GNU stuff) but generally not the most
appropriate tool outside of this scope.

> > Besides, it pays
> > better.
> 
> I don't know about that.  There's no difference in pay (where I work)
> between a C coder and a C++ coder. There's a huge amount of C code out
> there and there's still quite a demand for it.  I don't think this is
> his interest, but maybe.

	Same can be said of COBOL! Anyway it was just a s(n)ide remark on my
part but a true one. Obviously your company is not a C++ shop. Take
ten companies, 5 C shops and 5 C++ shops, and the C++ shops will
generally pay 15 to 40% more for programmers with a similar level of
expertise in their respective language. Of course, I see that some
companies are paying competitive rates for Visual Basic programmers
who are not necessarily as competent either... YMMV!

	regards,

		Ben Scherrey