This makes no sense. If you don't like higher level abstraction, C or assembly is the perfect place to start. |
Exactly, I like it very much. Especially when I find out that generic programming could save me from
a lot of tedious codes and still give me the same speed(or even faster) as C. This boost up
productivity a lot, and I believe that if I could sharpen my skill days by days, my efficiency would
be much more better than now.Why bother to write the same codes when you know template
could generate it for you(extra benefits like type safe and others).
But there are one thing bother me, most of my classmates, seniors, even professors don't like C++ at all.Even I prove it that if C and C++ doing the same things, the speed and space of C++ could compete with C or even better than C with fewer codes and cleaner interfaces, they still neglect to accept C++(since their codes are not too complicated, I am still capable to "translate" it to C++).
That means that if I have to work with them, I would stuck at c.
Trying to catch up with higher abstraction seems like an impossible missions for most of the ee students.So I thought that If we learn how to program from higher abstraction, maybe this kind of situation could be solve?
Start with C and than jump to C++ |
I don't think this is a good idea since this maybe one of the reason which make us ee students refuse to accept higher abstraction. Exactly, many of us believe that C++ almost == C and we should not use those "crap" features of C++ since they are slow, fat and hard to understand(what a tragedy to judge the thing they don't know like this).These are my views though. :)
This is the opinion of Bjarne Stroustrup's, the father of C++
Knowing C is a prerequisite for learning C++, right?
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#prerequisite
ps : I seldom use dynamic polymorphism, but looks like dynamic polymorphism is much more popular than static polymorphism.