Message-ID: <39F6132C.CA47EEB6@bluedog.apana.org.au>
From: Jason Stokes <jstok AT bluedog DOT apana DOT org DOT au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-12 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Undertaking a programming journey
References: <MOqE5.2173$W31 DOT 29870 AT news1 DOT online DOT no> <8scg36$gsm$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <39E9CF07 DOT 785C0C0F AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> <8scls9$kth$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <rgnjusgvadc5q9d53jticrrgdthc9af3lv AT 4ax DOT com> <39E9FAD5 DOT DE1FDAE4 AT eton DOT powernet DOT co DOT uk> <8sdrub$h7u$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> <njPI5.7153$e5 DOT 18270 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-3.aaa.net.au
X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 972427933 203.14.230.68 (Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:52:13 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:52:13 EST
Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:54:36 +1100
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

D Steward wrote:
> 
> > Something you seem to miss is that the beauty and power of C is the
> > fact that it lends itself to a variety of programming styles.  I
> > personally liked Schildts books.  I have only read three of them but
> > the ones I read I liked.  They where not perfect, but they where good.
> > Appearantly a lot of other people do, since they sell so well.

> How can you possibly tell us, they were not perfect but good, when you don't
> know enough about programming to be able to justify such a comment.
> The only virtue Schildt has is an eloquent polished style of witing. He is
> wonderfully good at writing, that's why the publishers and ignorant
> newcomers like him. But his programming is rubbish. A lot of his programs
> won't compile, and in a lot of cases his books will tell you the opposite of
> what is in the Standard.

A Schildt bashing rant on the level of that makes me want to take a
contrary line.  So let me pose an exam-style question:

From the standpoint of an engineer who is used to evaluating
*tradeoffs*, might it be arguable that an *on balance* argument might be
made, to wit, that a Schildt book that has been written quite elegantly
and accessibly, yet contains the occasional error, might not be
considered preferable to a book which is scrupulously correct, yet
written in such Stroustroupish turgidness that all first-years who have
had the misfortune to be exposed to it defect to something nice and easy
like media studies?  Why or why not?  Please bear in mind the fate of
the world if swamped with an army of media studies graduates...