🚀 go-pugleaf

slmyv@millville.declab.usu.edu (Denys Larry) wrote:

>In article <rshapiro-1408950937080001@esb.bbn.com>, rshapiro@bbn.com (R Shapiro) writes:
>|>In article <40mqib$msc@wormhole.cognos.com>, douvilld@Cognos.COM (Derek
>|>Douville) wrote:
>|>>One cannot fully apreciate the advanced organizational features of C++
>|>>until they've programmed in C.  
>|>
>|>And you can't understand the "advanced" features of C until you've
>|>manually set bits in hardware with toggle switches, right? Therefore every
>|>new programmer should start by programming in machine language -- yeah,
>|>that's a *great* way to teach modern principles of programming...

>  Going to toggle switches is a little much, but it has been my
>experience that programmers who know assembly are much better at
>programming in C than those who don't.  I think the same is true of
>C and C++ programmers.

I agree that understanding the linker process of C object files is aided by knowledge of
how this would be done with an assembler object code.   But disagree that significant work
with C is necessary for C++.  Basicly I would say it is a matter of personal preference,
if you are the kind of person that enjoys working close to the hardware, you'll prefer C
'the portable assembler', if you are a 'big concept' person like me, then you won't be
able to find a use for C, but C++ objects will appeal.  

Of course if you really want portablility or you are into the WWW you'll go for Java, at
http://java.sun.com.   Java is an alternative to C++, you still call C for the low-level
stuff just the same as from C++.   So maybe you should learn C then choose between C++ and
Java.




David.Gunn@econsoft.wintermute.co.uk
Aberdeen, Scotland

"All opinions must be my own, since nobody pays me
 enough to be their mouthpiece."