Want to learn C

[Veryplayable]

Hello, for a few years, iv always been interested in programming and dabbled around in it. I started with HTML and css, but I am more interested in programming, then web design. I started learning Java but then I decided for various reasons that I would switch to c/c++. Iv watched some videos and read some stuff, but not really got anything that will really get me started. Do you guys know of any good resources? Thanks!

[WorldDominator]

Unless you want to get down and dirty with memory yourself, I recommend you avoid it like the plague

 

I enjoyed doing python last semester, but I did C/C++ this semester and was miserable. May have just been the teacher for me, though.

[Veryplayable]

Unless you want to get down and dirty with memory yourself, I recommend you avoid it like the plague

 

I enjoyed doing python last semester, but I did C/C++ this semester and was miserable. May have just been the teacher for me, though.

If I may ask, what was so bad about it?

[Veryplayable]

Bump

[Uncharted218]

check out udacity.com

they offer free courses teaching you python and java

[WorldDominator]

If I may ask, what was so bad about it?

Very technical at times and various minor things that threw you off. Also debugging can be difficult at times if you ask me. 

 

 

Bump

Don't believe this is allowed here

[Hans Christian | Teri]

Definitely learn C++, it's a fantastic language. Find a basic tutorial online and after completing that you should pretty much be able to guess the rest of the steps because you learned c syntax with Java.

[gastew15]

If I may ask, what was so bad about it?

No Garbage collection on C++ is definitely a pain, if you're not worried about it all the time, and even though Software side & most big games use C++ for many reasons, really Java is an upgraded version of C++ in my mind. All languages are really just based on what you want to use it for, since even Pearl's a great language for certain things. I happen to work with C++ a lot, but the whole learn c thing will be a bit of a pain, since C# isn't really just like C++, or anything they are similar, and all, but both have a lot of differences.  I'd recommend starting out with a language like Java that's pretty powerful, since it's still a high level programming language that actually works on any OS if it has Java on it, since it decodes it it's self, and it'll a better starting point for you to learn Object Oriented programing.    If you're fully dead set on skipping it then disregard what I said, but you probably don't want to .

[jam08060]

No Garbage collection on C++ is definitely a pain, if you're not worried about it all the time, and even though Software side & most big games use C++ for many reasons, really Java is an upgraded version of C++ in my mind. All languages are really just based on what you want to use it for, since even Pearl's a great language for certain things. I happen to work with C++ a lot, but the whole learn c thing will be a bit of a pain, since C# isn't really just like C++, or anything they are similar, and all, but both have a lot of differences.  I'd recommend starting out with a language like Java that's pretty powerful, since it's still a high level programming language that actually works on any OS if it has Java on it, since it decodes it it's self, and it'll a better starting point for you to learn Object Oriented programing.    If you're fully dead set on skipping it then disregard what I said, but you probably don't want to .

 

C++ doesn't need garbage collection, it has destructors... whenever a class loses its reference in c++ it automatically has its destructor called and the memory is freed up...

[alpenwasser]

For C, I recommend "The C Programming Language". It's a great book, and since C is

not a very large language you'll be able to work through it rather quickly.

Also, check out the programming resources thread, this is what it's for.

[Javathejhut]

For C, I recommend "The C Programming Language". It's a great book, and since C is

not a very large language you'll be able to work through it rather quickly.

Also, check out the programming resources thread, this is what it's for.

This is a good idea. Book was written by Kernigan and Ritchie, founders of c at Bell Labs. I would also recommend the Brian Brown C tutorials however. I just finished a course where this book and tutorial set were used together. It was fantastic.

[ehsanawan]

I would recommend you to read the book: "Let us C"

[fizzlesticks]

C++ doesn't need garbage collection, it has destructors... whenever a class loses its reference in c++ it automatically has its destructor called and the memory is freed up...

I guess I don't pay enough attention to updates...when did that start happening?

[jam08060]

I guess I don't pay enough attention to updates...when did that start happening?

 

Errr 2011 standard or earlier 0.o, however if you dynamically create memory using malloc then you still need to free it... and you must implement the destructors anyway... its not the same as garbage collection, it is C++'s own way of handling cleaning up memory used due to creating Objects... pretty much the inverse of a constructor...

[WanderingFool]

I guess there is a bit of confusion about the subject of garbage collection (although I have probably gotten a bit sloppy on terms, I will try to straighten a few things up)

 

C++ and C don't really have garbage collection (You have to manually handle the memory objects).  Yes C++ has destructors, but they do not replace garbage collection, they are there to allow you to clean up the object properly (like if an object has allocated memory using things such as malloc or new).

Just like void test() { int i; return; } in C will create a space for i and then delete it afterwards this doesn't really constitute as garbage collection because it was all locally available in stack.

 

C++ and C could have garbage collection (by exploiting the fact the stack gets cleaned up), but I find the implementations are a bit cumbersome...I find it a lot easier just having manual memory management (although you do need to be careful)....with that said, since there are no real garbage collectors in C++ you have the issue that you need to clean up the memory that you have allocated (ie. if you use malloc as @jam08060 has said, or even if you use new, you must then use delete to clean up the memory).  So the importance of the deconstructor in C++ was cases where an object has allocated extra memory using new or malloc (as to clean up the memory)

 

On a side note @ehsanawan was there really a need to make so many posts in old threads (and in some cases giving the same answer the first responder said)

[jam08060]

I guess there is a bit of confusion about the subject of garbage collection (although I have probably gotten a bit sloppy on terms, I will try to straighten a few things up)

 

C++ and C don't really have garbage collection (You have to manually handle the memory objects).  Yes C++ has destructors, but they do not replace garbage collection, they are there to allow you to clean up the object properly (like if an object has allocated memory using things such as malloc or new).

Just like void test() { int i; return; } in C will create a space for i and then delete it afterwards this doesn't really constitute as garbage collection because it was all locally available in stack.

 

C++ and C could have garbage collection (by exploiting the fact the stack gets cleaned up), but I find the implementations are a bit cumbersome...I find it a lot easier just having manual memory management (although you do need to be careful)....with that said, since there are no real garbage collectors in C++ you have the issue that you need to clean up the memory that you have allocated (ie. if you use malloc as @jam08060 has said, or even if you use new, you must then use delete to clean up the memory).  So the importance of the deconstructor in C++ was cases where an object has allocated extra memory using new or malloc (as to clean up the memory)

 

On a side note @ehsanawan was there really a need to make so many posts in old threads (and in some cases giving the same answer the first responder said)

 

What I said but in more words 0.o

[WanderingFool]

What I said but in more words 0.o

Yea, very similar...the only thing I wanted to stress was destructors are not the reason C++ doesn't "need garbage collection", but rather desctructors are partly there because there is no garbage collection....but yea, I pretty much agree with that you said

[fizzlesticks]

I guess there is a bit of confusion about the subject of garbage collection (although I have probably gotten a bit sloppy on terms, I will try to straighten a few things up)

 

C++ and C don't really have garbage collection (You have to manually handle the memory objects).  Yes C++ has destructors, but they do not replace garbage collection, they are there to allow you to clean up the object properly (like if an object has allocated memory using things such as malloc or new).

Just like void test() { int i; return; } in C will create a space for i and then delete it afterwards this doesn't really constitute as garbage collection because it was all locally available in stack.

 

C++ and C could have garbage collection (by exploiting the fact the stack gets cleaned up), but I find the implementations are a bit cumbersome...I find it a lot easier just having manual memory management (although you do need to be careful)....with that said, since there are no real garbage collectors in C++ you have the issue that you need to clean up the memory that you have allocated (ie. if you use malloc as @jam08060 has said, or even if you use new, you must then use delete to clean up the memory).  So the importance of the deconstructor in C++ was cases where an object has allocated extra memory using new or malloc (as to clean up the memory)

 

On a side note @ehsanawan was there really a need to make so many posts in old threads (and in some cases giving the same answer the first responder said)

Ok, it sounded like they implemented objective-c style reference counting and I got confused.

[jam08060]

Yea, very similar...the only thing I wanted to stress was destructors are not the reason C++ doesn't "need garbage collection", but rather desctructors are partly there because there is no garbage collection....but yea, I pretty much agree with that you said

 

Ok, it sounded like they implemented objective-c style reference counting and I got confused.

 

I personally don't like garbage collection all that much because I much prefer controlling my own memory usage... so for my usage it is a direct replacement...

 

This is probably because I do tend to write programs that are memory heavy multi-threaded programs and garbage collection likes to take its sweet time cleaning up memory sometimes...

[WanderingFool]

I personally don't like garbage collection all that much because I much prefer controlling my own memory usage... so for my usage it is a direct replacement...

 

This is probably because I do tend to write programs that are memory heavy multi-threaded programs and garbage collection likes to take its sweet time cleaning up memory sometimes...

Completely agree, manual memory management is the best (Unless you work with someone who neglects to put in deletes and frees).  I get what you are saying about the direct replacement though (if I am not mistaken that is how garbage collection in C++ is implemented, through special classes which count using constructors and destructors).

[jam08060]

Completely agree, manual memory management is the best (Unless you work with someone who neglects to put in deletes and frees).  I get what you are saying about the direct replacement though (if I am not mistaken that is how garbage collection in C++ is implemented, through special classes which count using constructors and destructors).

 

I would imagine, but pfft if people are building & using garbage collection for C++ then they are completely missing the real fun of the language!