Re: Docs, questions and stuff
Re: Docs, questions and stuff
- Subject: Re: Docs, questions and stuff
- From: Chris Gehlker <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:11:07 -0700
On 8/26/01 7:31 AM, "David P. Henderson" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
I have to agree with Jonathan. I groked OO much better after reading
>
_Thinking_In_Java_. IMO, Java is a much better model for understanding
>
how ObjC works than C++. While C++ can be used for OO, it is often
>
taught in classes and books as _C_ plus plus ie C with really
>
useful/nifty additions.
I agree that there are a lot of bad C++ books and courses. And I really
think that "bad" is the word to use here.
Sure C++ can be used as C + syntactic sugar and there was justification for
that when it was used to maintain so much C code. I've just seen too many
people stuck in that mode. It doesn't need to be taught.
>
In this regard, recommending a good learning
>
Java book is much better for learning the principles to using ObjC and
>
Cocoa in conjunction with a good intro to C book for those with no C
>
experience. As an additional point, since Java can be used to write
>
Cocoa applications, and C++ can not, the person learning could then
>
apply the Java skills to learning and using Cocoa rather than attempting
>
to translate Java to ObjC. This point is more significant to programming
>
newbies than those with any programming experience.
They could just use Java. I still think it's very worth the effort to
translate the Java into ObjC. I don't think that's a very big effort and
there are several good reasons to favor ObjC.
--
Many individuals have, like uncut diamonds, shining qualities beneath a
rough exterior. - Juvenal, poet (c. 60-140)