Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!hardin
From: hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Starting on C++
Message-ID: <6170019@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 3 May 90 00:08:11 GMT
References: <4403@mit-caf.MIT.EDU>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 48

Though I don't want to get into an extended argument over Pohl's book,
I'd like to respond briefly to some comments made by Cay Horstmann
for the possible benefit of someone looking for an introductory text.

In reference to Pohl's book, Cay writes:

> There really is very little there. Look at the "stock broker" example
> in chapter 1. It is hard to conceive of a more pitiful example for
> derived classes or virtual functions. Look at the aptly named "BStree."
> Or look at the incredibly dumb discussion of assignment to this. Either
> do it right or don't do it. (There is a lot to be said for the latter 
> approach, with version 2, of course.) 

Rather than being robust examples of C++ classes, Pohl's examples do
little more than illustrate the specific point(s) being made.  This
often greatly enhances the clarity of the book.  

> The book introduces the MECHANICS of SOME constructs of C++. I found it
> disappointingly short on IDEAS. 

When I bought Pohl's book I was looking for a clear tutorial on the
mechanics of this new language rather than a complete reference manual.
After reading it, I was so pleased with it that I bought a second copy
for a colleague.

> Disclaimer: I am writing a C++ text myself, soon to be published by Wiley. 
> So it is in my interest to say terrible things about other C++ books.
> Here goes: Pohl's book is bad. ALL other C++ books are bad. BUY MINE! :->

I look forward to seeing it.  Always room for improvement (at least until
your book comes out  :-) ).  

> Seriously, I would recommend Lippman's book. It is a much better reference
> than Pohl's. For an intuitive introduction, I like Eckel's book. It has
> some nice sections (e.g. when to use references) that ease the transition
> C->C++.

Lippman's book is indeed a better reference than Pohl's, but I found Pohl's
to be a better first introduction to the language (personal opinion only).
I'm quite happy that I have both.

Considering the different needs of different readers and the fact that 
I found Pohl's book to be just what I needed at the time, I think it's
not the best of advice to warn others away from it.

John Hardin
hardin@hpindgh.hp.com
----------