Am 19.12.2021 um 19:11 schrieb Guillaume:
> Le 18/12/2021 à 15:26, Bonita Montero a écrit :
>> Am 18.12.2021 um 13:49 schrieb Torbjörn Svensson Diaz:
>>
>>>> Absolutely sufficient for this bad language:
>>>> http://cslabcms.nju.edu.cn/problem_solving/images/c/cc/The_C_Programming_Language_%282nd_Edition_Ritchie_Kernighan%29.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks. But what is so bad about C in your opinion?
>>
>> Becaues C has only the simplest language facilities and
>> you have to do anything on your own. Other languages make
>> programming much easier.
>
> So (even if that was kinda obvious from many of your other posts),
> you're here in comp.lang.c *only* to endlessly claim C is really bad,
> and to promote other languages, mainly C++ as far as I've read.

C is good to learn C++ later.

Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:

> On 12/19/2021 4:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 5:35:01 AM UTC-6, Torbjörn Svensson Diaz wrote:
>>>> What is the best way to learn C? Which are the best tutorials and
>>>> which are the best books? Can someone please give me a little
>>>> guidance?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Others have given good book suggestions. For the best /tutorial/, I'd
>>> recommend Brian Kernighan's original tutorial paper. It's a little
>>> outdated and quirky. But it's well written and *short*. It gives a
>>> reasonably complete overview that should make a more modern text
>>> easier to follow.
>>>
>>> https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-tutor.html
>> No, I can't agree. At time, maybe, but not now. Amongst the big
>> problems are: no function prototypes, implicit int, old-style function
>> definitions, the old =<op> syntax, unique structure tags (because they
>> are all interchangeable), no initialisation of structures nor of local
>> variables and '\0' as an end-of-file marker.
>> But then there's almost no use of library functions, no unsigned types,
>> no typedef, no long, no void, no const and all local declarations have
>> to be at the start of a function. Some of these would, perhaps, be
>> deliberately omitted from a first tutorial, but I would not students to
>> learn that C has only four types: char, int float and double.
>> I suppose it's still possible that this is the best tutorial but that
>> says more about the others than it does about the suitability of this
>> one (there are a lot of awful ones out there).
>>
>
> In short, along the lines of the same reasoning, could one say that
> K&R2 is still among the best choices available?

K&R2 is among the best introductions, but I don't see much of the same
reasoning. For one thing, my recollection is that there are other good
books out there, so it is not faute de mieux. For another, you won't
learn much from K&R2 that a modern C compiler will throw out. You'll
miss out on a few things, but you'd have a reasonable grounding.

(And what's going on with blanks lines? I keep replying to posts
quoting me, where all the blank lines I put in have gone. I thought it
might be Google -- always a good bet is Usenet posts are messed up --
but you don't post through Google.)

--
Ben.

On 12/19/2021 9:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 12/19/2021 4:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
[...]
>>> I suppose it's still possible that this is the best tutorial but that
>>> says more about the others than it does about the suitability of this
>>> one (there are a lot of awful ones out there).
>>>
>>
>> In short, along the lines of the same reasoning, could one say that
>> K&R2 is still among the best choices available?
>
> K&R2 is among the best introductions, but I don't see much of the same
> reasoning.

The reasoning would be that it is still among the best despite its age,
which says something about later books.

For one thing, my recollection is that there are other good
> books out there, so it is not faute de mieux. For another, you won't
> learn much from K&R2 that a modern C compiler will throw out. You'll
> miss out on a few things, but you'd have a reasonable grounding.
>
> (And what's going on with blanks lines? I keep replying to posts
> quoting me, where all the blank lines I put in have gone. I thought it
> might be Google -- always a good bet is Usenet posts are messed up --
> but you don't post through Google.)
>

(I see now that those lines have gone - I was not aware when I wrote my
reply. While I'm writing this empty lines are still in)

On 19/12/2021 10:20, David LaRue wrote:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:87czlt6rr3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com:
>
>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Am 18.12.2021 um 12:34 schrieb Torbjörn Svensson Diaz:
>>>> Hello!
>>>> What is the best way to learn C? Which are the best tutorials and
>>>> which are the best books? Can someone please give me a little
>>>> guidance?
>>>
>>> Absolutely sufficient for this bad language:
>>> http://[DELETED]/The_C_Programming_Language_%282nd_Edition_Ritchie_Ker
>>> nighan%29.pdf
>>
>> That's a link to a pirated copy of a copyrighted book. Legitimate
>> copies are available from various book sellers, including in
>> electronic formats (Amazon Kindle, probably others).
>>
>> Shame on you.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Best way to learn any language is to read its rules and then build what you
> want. Start small and grow the details. I still have Ritchie's book
> within reach should it ever be needed. Why throw away something that
> rarely changes. That is a great feature of C. Another is that while you
> can buy code written by others to make things you can just as easily make
> them yourself.
>

A large amount /has/ changed in C. It is not without reason that there
was a second edition of "The C Programming Language". But that was
outdated long ago as the language changed, computers changed, compilers
changed, and modern practice changed. It is still a very good book,
worth reading, and a good example of technical writing, but you can't
learn to write good modern C code from TCPL alone.

The "best" way to learn a language depends on your experience, ability,
level of related experience, level of interest, and intended usage. For
playing around as a hobby when you are new to programming, "reading the
rules" (i.e., the current C standards) is about the worst starting
point. If you are an experienced programmer in other languages, /then/
perhaps reading the rules of C might be useful even early on.

Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:

> On 12/19/2021 9:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/19/2021 4:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> [...]
>>>> I suppose it's still possible that this is the best tutorial but that
>>>> says more about the others than it does about the suitability of this
>>>> one (there are a lot of awful ones out there).
>>>>
>>>
>>> In short, along the lines of the same reasoning, could one say that
>>> K&R2 is still among the best choices available?
>> K&R2 is among the best introductions, but I don't see much of the same
>> reasoning.
>
> The reasoning would be that it is still among the best despite its
> age, which says something about later books.

I see what you mean. Yes, I would say so. Mind you, it's a lot younger
than the C tutorial -- 14 years younger.

> For one thing, my recollection is that there are other good
>> books out there, so it is not faute de mieux. For another, you won't
>> learn much from K&R2 that a modern C compiler will throw out. You'll
>> miss out on a few things, but you'd have a reasonable grounding.
>> (And what's going on with blanks lines? I keep replying to posts
>> quoting me, where all the blank lines I put in have gone. I thought it
>> might be Google -- always a good bet is Usenet posts are messed up --
>> but you don't post through Google.)
>
> (I see now that those lines have gone - I was not aware when I wrote
> my reply. While I'm writing this empty lines are still in)

Just to be clear, it's blank lines in quoted material and I think you
only quoted one such line: between your question and my "K&R2 is among
the best..." paragraph.

If you want to test, this post ends with tree paragraphs, all set off
from the one before with a blank line.

I.e. there is one before "Just", one before "If" and one before "I.e.".
I know you are seeing them, I write this so that when it's been quoyed a
few times, people can see what was originally intended.

--
Ben.

Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>(I see now that those lines have gone - I was not aware when I wrote my
>reply. While I'm writing this empty lines are still in)

I edit quotations manually to remove whitespace and empty
lines. My intention is to still have it there but take less
space, so as to make it clear that it is less relevant now
because it's been probably read before and to make the new
material stand out.

OTOH, what I cannot stand is when my posts are modified by
the moderation of a moderated newsgroup before publication
because in this case people think that I must have written
it this way since they cannot see what I actually have
submitted. That's why I stopped posting in comp.std.c. The
moderation was not even willing to publish a post wherein
I wanted to discuss this.

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>>(I see now that those lines have gone - I was not aware when I wrote my
>>reply. While I'm writing this empty lines are still in)
>
> I edit quotations manually to remove whitespace and empty
> lines. My intention is to still have it there but take less
> space, so as to make it clear that it is less relevant now
> because it's been probably read before and to make the new
> material stand out.
>
> OTOH, what I cannot stand is when my posts are modified by
> the moderation of a moderated newsgroup before publication
> because in this case people think that I must have written
> it this way since they cannot see what I actually have
> submitted. That's why I stopped posting in comp.std.c. The
> moderation was not even willing to publish a post wherein
> I wanted to discuss this.

comp.std.c is not moderated. comp.lang.c.moderated is, but the
last post I see is from 2014.

I don't know what modifications were made, but there are some I'd
consider reasonable.

Deleting blank lines that mark paragraphs seems like a bad idea.
For example, I wouldn't consider deleting the blank line in
your quote. I might not quote the whole thing, but I'd mark any
deletions. I do sometimes re-wrap quoted text.

And indenting original material as you've done here goes against
Usenet convention and hurts clarity.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Torbj??rn Svensson Diaz <torbjorn.svensson.diaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello! What is the best way to learn C?

I haven't read all the other followups,
so forgive if this is just a repeat.
You ever hear the joke about the tourist
in New York City, walking up Broadway, who
stops a passerby and asks...
Question: How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Answer: Practice.
C programming, and programming in general,
is a craft. Just like playing piano, reading
all the books in the world ain't gonna teach
you how to actually do it. So the best way
to learn C is to write programs, and programs,
and...

> Which are the best tutorials and which
> are the best books? Can someone please
> give me a little guidance?

Seem to already be lots of useful suggestions.
You, yourself will have to decide which one(s)
actually work best for you and your background,
needs, interests, etc.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

On 2021-12-19, Guillaume <message@bottle.org> wrote:
> Le 18/12/2021 ?? 15:26, Bonita Montero a ??crit??:
>> Am 18.12.2021 um 13:49 schrieb Torbj??rn Svensson Diaz:
>>
>>>> Absolutely sufficient for this bad language:
>>>> http://cslabcms.nju.edu.cn/problem_solving/images/c/cc/The_C_Programming_Language_%282nd_Edition_Ritchie_Kernighan%29.pdf
>>
>>
>>> Thanks. But what is so bad about C in your opinion?
>>
>> Becaues C has only the simplest language facilities and
>> you have to do anything on your own. Other languages make
>> programming much easier.
>
> So (even if that was kinda obvious from many of your other posts),
> you're here in comp.lang.c *only* to endlessly claim C is really bad,
> and to promote other languages, mainly C++ as far as I've read.

I'd also wondered why he bothered to be here!

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>>(I see now that those lines have gone - I was not aware when I wrote my
>>reply. While I'm writing this empty lines are still in)
>
> I edit quotations manually to remove whitespace and empty
>
> lines. My intention is to still have it there but take less
>
> space, so as to make it clear that it is less relevant now
>
> because it's been probably read before and to make the new
>
> material stand out.

In other words, you think you know better than the original
author. Please don't.

On 18.12.21 13:21, Stefan Ram wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Torbj=c3=b6rn_Svensson_Diaz?= <torbjorn.svensson.diaz@gmail.com> writes:
>> What is the best way to learn C? Which are the best tutorials and which
>> are the best books? Can someone please give me a little guidance?
>
> Check out
>
> "Modern C" by Jens Gustedt
>
> .
>
>

I agree that is a great C book. Though it is a somewhat advanced one.
I'd suggest to also have a look at "Effective C" by Robert Seacord.

IMO, these two are currently among the best C books.

Also, at some point you might want to have a look at the C standard. It
is quite readable. Especially the library section in the standard is IMO
a very good way to learn about the library.

Philipp