Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/10/16/21:15:14
In article <8sfhr4$si2$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com>,
ChuckEasttom <chuckeasttom AT my-deja DOT com> wrote:
>In article <39EB4271 DOT 85CE6874 AT antlimited DOT com>,
> Richard Heathfield <richard AT antlimited DOT com> wrote:
>> ChuckEasttom wrote:
>> > In article <39EAF73E DOT ECA52E1A AT antlimited DOT com>,
>> > Richard Heathfield <richard AT antlimited DOT com> wrote:
>> > > does not unwittingly mislead people? And why should he be immune
>> > >to
>> > > criticism? Surely someone with an advanced degree should be
>> > under /more/
>> > > scrutiny than someone who does not?
>> >
>> > I am more of a C++ guy, so I am looking in Schilds "C++ the complete
>> > reference" in the about the author section. It mensions his having:
>> > 1. A Masters in CS from the University of Illinois
>>
>> Then he should know better than to write the kind of code that
>> he /does/
>> write. He is a persuasive author; this should be a good thing but,
>> unfortunately, in his case it is not. He covers difficult topics with
>> aplomb - perhaps this is a consequence of his Masters degree. What a
>> pity, then, that I cannot trust his code.
>>
>I am not saying his code or his books are perfect. I am saying,
>however, that your statement "I cannot trust his code" is simply too
>strong.
Unfortunately, this is a 2 decades old argument about this author.
It was bad enough that so many blatant errors existed but as Rich
has pointed out, it was so so so easy to fix them.
Clearly the author refused. And it is THAT which is too strong.
And the people read his books, because he is a good writer
(prose and such). And then teachers and such must argue with
their students and such. And it is THAT which is too strong.
>> > 2. Being a member of the ANSI C++ standardization committee.
>>
>> I can't answer for the C++ side of things, but I am given to
>> understand
>> that he also claims membership of the ANSI C committee, but that he is
>> actually an "observing member", and IIRC a committee member said last
>> year that he doesn't recall seeing Schildt at any actual meetings.
>
>I do not know about any claims to the ANSI C committee.
He's made them. And FWIW, I've never seen him at a C++ committee
meeting, although as Rich says, he could be an "observing member".
>> > I do realize you have coauthored the book "C Unleashed" which btw I
>like.
>>
>> I'm glad you like it, but I don't think that I am more qualified to
>> criticise Mr Schildt's code now than I was before I co-wrote that
>book.
>> I am also acutely aware that the book has errors. It is therefore
>> incumbent upon me to publish those errors as and when they are
>> discovered (and, in fact, I have a small backlog of errors which I
>have
>> not yet published - remind me to do it this weekend, would you? ;-) ).
>>
>
>Oh I will undoubtably be scouring your book for errors:)
>
>But my point is this: Your book has some errors, Schildts book has some
>errors... I have a little epublished VB book that I am currently
>revising because of...yep errors. But your statements seem to indicate
>that if his books have any errors, then they cannot be trusted.
This thread's made some points about this already, so this is
somewhat circular. That wasn't Rich's point. The point is not
just that Schildts books have errors, but that in Rich's case
he went and did something about his errors, he didn't argue them,
and he didn't make believe they didn't exist, and he didn't let
more printing of the book occur with them for years. And then
he didn't got write another book with the same errors.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing / Comeau C/C++ "so close" 4.2.44 betas NOW AVAILABLE
TRY Comeau C++ ONLINE at http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
Email: comeau AT comeaucomputing DOT com / WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com
- Raw text -