Survey Results

ed welch7-Dec-09 1:43

ed welch

7-Dec-09 1:43

you can't learn a language by reading a reference, you need tutorials and real world examples. This survey is based on an idiotic proposal.

peterchen7-Dec-09 2:21

7-Dec-09 2:21

Some people can. We call them mathematicians.

Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server

PIEBALDconsult7-Dec-09 6:17

PIEBALDconsult

7-Dec-09 6:17

I'm no mathematician; I'm a pedant and a Theoretician[^] -- a big, dense book is my primary weapon. Cool | :cool:

Glad I'm not the only one...

CDMTJX8-Dec-09 3:32

CDMTJX

8-Dec-09 3:32

I have read through specifications for Fortran, C, Ada, back when I did compiler work. Not much call for compilers anymmore, I've moved on...

I've skimmed C# books. Wouldn't even know where to find a real specification. I'm not implementing C#, just finding how to use it...

i already know ;}

radioman.lt6-Dec-09 21:06

radioman.lt

6-Dec-09 21:06

i'm already know what i'm doing, no need for big specifications... D'Oh! | :doh:

anyway www.cppreference.com[^] is quietly enough for me, for c# google has 'most wanted' specifications, http://www.albahari.com/threading/[^] is nice $Shucks | :-\$

..but if you have nothing to do, you can digg down deep to the asm, then into raw cpu ;} and finally figure out why wtf the Console.Write works Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

peace & serenity

lepipele6-Dec-09 19:26

lepipele

6-Dec-09 19:26

Over 40% of people have voted for "I haven't, and won't".

My $.02 on this subject: Beside being utterly boring, language specifications are like code comments - 95% of what your read is useless. Or as Samual Johnson said: "What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure."

Re: Glad I'm not the only one...

peterchen6-Dec-09 23:31

Re: Glad I'm not the only one...

6-Dec-09 23:31

Just because others are worse doesn't mean you are good.

One should have read some language specifications, just to be able to consult it in case of "that's funny!" - especially if your language is as complex as C++. I've seen many incorrect "compiler bug!" posts that are rather a misunderstanding of the C++ standard.

Carlosian7-Dec-09 4:58

Carlosian

7-Dec-09 4:58

peterchen wrote:
One should have read some language specifications, just to be able to consult it in case of "that's funny!" - especially if your language is as complex as C++. I've seen many incorrect "compiler bug!" posts that are rather a misunderstanding of the C++ standard.

I agree that when confronted with a subtle error or question one should consult the spec, and I have done so (especially before screaming "compiler bug"). But consulting the spec for targeted information on a particular topic is quite different from reading the entire thing, much less retaining all of it.

Re: Glad I'm not the only one...

peterchen7-Dec-09 10:47

7-Dec-09 10:47

No need to read it cover to cover, jsut trying to figure out how it's written.

All the way through?

Jay Riggs6-Dec-09 18:48

Jay Riggs

6-Dec-09 18:48

... no, just the interesting parts.

dmitri_sps6-Dec-09 19:23

dmitri_sps

6-Dec-09 19:23

I would agree - my choice would be "read parts of it".
I look into the specs when I need, when I meet some... dilemma Confused | :confused:

peterchen6-Dec-09 23:24

6-Dec-09 23:24

Admit it, by "interesting parts", you mean the pictures! Big Grin | :-D

Fahad Sadah7-Dec-09 5:29

Fahad Sadah

7-Dec-09 5:29

They have pictures now? /me "reads" a ton