Please stop recommending this book to beginners

The book is fine. The issue is people recommending only that book.
People should read it to learn the language, and then read some best practices guides as well.

Attached: 41 bFKtFHjL._SX405_BO1 204 203 200_.jpg (407x500, 24K)

not using C at all

Attached: IntroducingGo.jpg (500x656, 61K)

Learning programming and picking C as first language is tricky.
Language means shit, it won't teach you how computers work. And no matter which you pick and how many you try, no language will teach you that. But you kinda need programming language to interact with computer and learn how the computer works. Therefor learning programming and first language can be daunting and disappointing because there are so many important concepts that language doesn't describe but are essential for programming and knowing how computers work.

brainlet tier post

why rustfags are so obvious?
go lick your tranny dev dick

this one

no one cares how a computer works beyond what programming expirence will teach you, that's the compiler and interpreters job to deal with.

>t. pajeet

This is a good book though. It does the programming equivalent of teaching you the alphabet. Acting like it does any more than that is the downfall, not the book itself.

Just answer the question.

I don't recommend K&R as a book for beginners too. You'd better start with King's. K&R is a book to teach C, not to teach programming. They don't bother teaching you about obvious stuff like what a data structure is, and their explanation about pointers is fucking bonkers.

We had a thread last week about C books and more than half the people there didn't know how to solve exercise 13 in full generality. I think that's the one with the horizontal histogram, but I'm not sure.

Why do people even recommend C as a whole?

If you want to learn programming tou read sicp. That's it. Learning a programming language has nothing to do with learning to program.

what the hell is sicp

Ask me how I know your code is terribly inefficient and unoptimized.

Because they are either
1. Autistic NEET who want to feel elitist because they're able to write their fizzbuzzes in a more difficult language
2. Boomers who use it because of their familiarity with it
3. Systems programmers who actually need it because there is still no viable alternatives. Rust seems like the only one that may even come close.

I'll ask you why you think his code is inefficient and unoptimized. Did you also fall for the "muh d-data" meme?

Okay I'll bite, why can't C++ be a systems programming language?
inb4 muh embedded devices with 512 bytes ROM

It's C with a bunch shitty anti-features tacked on so there is no reason or advantages to using that.

You've never used C++, have you?
At the very least, it never allowed variable length arrays. C did and it took years for linux to be VLA-free.

I barely have, why would I? I like languages that make my life simpler and easier. C++ does the opposite.

No, you just suck at C++ and miss the entire point of it. Probably because you try to use it as a low level language all the time.

A good introductionary book can help position yourself really well. The UNIX Programming Environment, for example, is a timeless classic precisely because of that.

I don't use it. I don't want an employer to see C++ on my github and assign me to figure out what a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor is.

lurk more newfag

Thank you for your service. I'd never want to copy and paste code all day and call myself a programmer.

Structure and interpretation of computer programs

t. spoon feeder

COME ON PEOPLE IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR

thanks is it any good or

>like bros you don't need to know how a program can operate under the hood
>just hit compile bro
>wait why's my code so slow
>wait why isn't it working correctly
>like wtf bros I hit compile but there's like tons of bugs!

What book should I read if I want to learn C in CURRENT_YEAR then?

>no one cares how a computer works
Not everyone is an anti-intellectual piece of shit like you webdev CS pajeet

>under the hood
The maximum you need to know is cache and that's it. A bad locality O(logN) solution beats an assembly O(n) one every time

4. People who simply don't like OOP

>anti-intellectual
Learning about hardware is a waste of time. Good programs are cross-platform.

There's a reason any CS department worth it's stuff always teaches at least one course in assembly, you massive fucktard.
>A bad locality O(logN) solution beats an assembly O(n) one every time
Only if your shit at assembly which, lets face it, if you're unironically gobbling OOP cock that's 100% true of you - and it gets reflected in your code.

I have these two:

I bought C for Dummies in '98. When it comes to laying he foundation to learning C, it did a pretty admirable job. I have another book on Linux Programming that touched on C for a good while (Beginning Linux Programming published by Wrox. I have the 1st edition), then I picked up C in a Nutshell and kept going with that.

Attached: 20181130_111838.jpg (4128x3096, 3.93M)

>always teaches
Literally no top 100 university on the planet has a mandatory assembly class. With good reason, there's nothing assembly will teach you. Modern compilers write better assembly than virtually all programmers.
>Only if your shit at assembly
Okay this is epic, I'm actually talking to some retard who never passed calc 1.

>If you want to learn programming tou read sicp
>thanks is it any good or
thinking_emoji.flac

>any cs class worth their stuff
Nowhere did I mention any meme colleges you literal brainlet. How the fuck you even program when you can't even read properly, is beyond me.
>m-muh compilers make better code!
Sure, if your shit at assembly. How many times do I need to repeat this? Ignoring the fact that compilers don't even support the latest instruction sets from Intel for example, yet, there's the fact that I can't tell you the amount of times I've looked at what the most vouched for compilers sharted out, and seen less then perfect output. But "it just werks" so of course it's good enough for you brain dead OOP fags hiding behind your self-imposed programmatic bureaucracy and bloat.
>never passed calc 1
I've passed calc 1 and 2 you literal retard.

>1 AND 2 dude I watched a few youtube vids i swear
Lol literal laughing stock.
>latest instruction sets
Who cares, my AMD CPU doesn't even have that crap. Stop making your crappy programs platform-locked. It'd take you ages to do the same analysis even gcc makes.
>meme colleges
You literally do not have the capacity for the big O notation, let alone some state university degree.

Send me your best linear search implementation, I fucking dare you. I'd love to benchmark it against geeksforgeeks's first crappy C++ binary search algorithm I find. No surprises of course O(N) is slower than O(logN).

>Literally no top 100 university on the planet has a mandatory assembly class. With good reason, there's nothing assembly will teach you. Modern compilers write better assembly than virtually all programmers.
All certified computer science programs require an assembly course and basic circuit course. You lying brainlet.

Do not confuse computer science with computer engineering you moron. Where's my linear search?

I had a mandatory class where we did a little bit of assembly. We mainly just studied hardware though.