Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news!nujoizey!gwu From: gwu@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: C++ learning curve (Was: Re: Seeking critique(s) of C++) Keywords: C++ learning curve Message-ID: <1950@news.tcs.com> Date: 26 Mar 91 23:41:25 GMT References: <1991Mar20.015750.9487@dbase.A-T.COM> <633@taumet.com> <18979@milton.u.washington.edu> Sender: root@tcs.com Reply-To: gwu@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu) Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Lines: 28 In article <18979@milton.u.washington.edu>, black@blake.u.washington.edu (Jim Black) writes: |> Anyway, by far the biggest criticism I would level at C++ is that it's |> a hard language to learn - much harder than C to become expert at. I've heard |> others on the net echo this "steep learning curve" experience. I won't go |> back to C, but I wouldn't underestimate this cost either. I've heard this argument before, and I have to wonder if it's not a matter of learning object oriented programming, rather than C++ itself. When I was in school, data abstraction and code modularity was heavily emphasized. There was also a smattering of object oriented programming, but for me, only as lectures, not programming assignments. Anyways, I found C++ easy to learn. It came naturally. I think the data abstract style of programming C-MU taught me is responsible for this. Granted, C++, and object oriented programming in general, does not consist solely of data abstraction. However, since I already think in those terms, it's certainly one aspect of C++ which I didn't have to learn. I will concede, however, straight C was easier to learn, but in the long run, the (for me) only slightly extra effort to learn C++ pays off. George ---- George J Wu, Software Engineer | gwu@tcs.com or uunet!tcs!gwu Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.| (415) 649-3752 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 | Quit reading news. Get back to work.