
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:23:55 +0000, Chris Hills wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bryan > Bullard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >>"Chris Hills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>chris, >> >>i can respectfully acknowledge you're point of view. however, i and many >>others believe the k&r book is still valid for learning simply because all >>the concepts are plainly stated and explained. it is an easily and quickly >>digestible text. >> >>also, i will remind you that off all the c code out there a relatively small >>percentage of it adheres to C90+. > > > Most adheres to C90+ Some now almost C99. Certainly all the compilers > are somewhere between C95 and C99. Many of the things in K&R are not > permitted in many coding standards etc. For example? > I have seen the effect of a K&R taught programmer coming to grips with > an embedded project... wanted to use sdterr and printf to hard disk for > debugging on an 8-bit smart card.... And how would other C tutorial books would avoid this problem? They seem to pretty much universally assume a console. Any why did you have such an incompetent newbie working on the project anyway? Do they take people fresh out of their first C programming course and throw them on small embedded systems where you work? Sounds like you guys must do really high quality stuff...
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |