🚀 go-pugleaf

Marauder (marauder@encomix.es) wrote:
: In article <41nga5$qau@druid.borland.com>,
: pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) wrote:
: > "So much clearer"? Really? Which of these two is easier to read?
: > 
: > typedef void (*sigfunc)(int);
: > sigfunc signal(int sig, sigfunc func);
: > 
: > or
: > 
: > void (*signal(int sig, void (*func)(int)))(int);
: > 
: > I am not an idiot, and I will always use the first form rather than the 
: > second. Good code is written clearly, not cleverly.

:    Yep. But keeping on mind some limits. I get really sick when I read in C

: #define BEGIN {
: #define END   }

Good for typing enthusiasts. :-)

: main()
:   BEGIN
:   ..
:   END

:    And replying to the subject, imho you shouldn't learn C++ before C.
:    I choose between C, C++ and Asm for my projects. See?  C and C++. Some
:    things are better to write in C and others in C++.

To chuck in my <checks current inflation values and exchange rates> $5 worth,
our university used to teach Modula-2 in the first semester and C in the
second semester. Now they teach C++ in first semester, as of this year, and
I have seen numerous students who understood C++ getting totally thrown.
For example, I was asked why some code didn't work. It was because the
variable was being declared in the middle of the function body, not at the
top. When I pointed this out, I was reminded that it's legal to do this in C++.
I think it's far easier to learn C, and pick up the C++ extras later than it
is to try and do it the other way around. Teach people 'cout' and they'll
want to know why they have to use printf 6 months later...

C is also good for really small projects when you don't want code bloat ;-)

--
mailto:danker@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au        http://hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au/~danker/

  GCS d-@ s: a-- C++(++++)$ US+ P+ L- E--- W+++ N+++ K--- w--- O? M++$ V--
	!PS PE Y PGP-- t@ 5? X R tv+ b+ DI-- D--- G e*>++ h* r* y-