> >> >K&R is beautiful in this respect. In > contrast, I > >> never managed to > >> >bite in Stroustrup's description. > >> > >> Ok, now I'll get provocative: > >> Then why do so many people have a problem > understanding C? > > > >Are you saying that there is a significant number of > >people who understand C++ but not C? The reason > > I wasn't saying anything, I was asking a question. :)
Ah, I misunderstood. The question about why people don't understand C on the heels of a reference to Stroustrup led me to think that was a suggestion C++ was easier to understand than C. Of course, I may be a little too sensitive to such a claim, because of what I've been hearing in the academic community for a while. Some keep saying that we should use more complex languages in the introductory course because they're in some way easier. But I've yet to understand their definition of easier.* BLS *Well, actually I do kind of realize they are suggesting that a tinkertoy approach makes it easier for a beginner to see something happen. The problem I have is that's not the point of teaching that material. Just getting something to happen might be training, but it sure isn't education.
