Seems like some hard learned advice that I mostly agree with.I really like the first edition. The first edition of C Programming: A Modern Approach was popular with students and faculty alike because of its clarity and comprehensiveness as well as its trademark Q&A sections. According to the objection, C is also, an, interpreted programming language so its not the correct classification. In any case, one can't conclude that something should be the way it is from the fact that it is the way it is without fruther premises, regardless of the kind of value judgements involved.Implicit key premise seems to be that the more akin a formal (programming) language to it's users' natural one, the more ergonomic it is. Therefore, the CV qualifier is also part of the declarator except for the one exception of the specifier. I used chrome on android the other day and I couldn't believe how many there were, or how annoying. "Your response is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.Sure, except for the part where C is a language that uses English or English-based keywords, designed by native English speakers.There's no "except" because one cannot conclude how people should write programs from how they do write programs, regardless of circumstances. I'm just addressing the consistency part here.Your third example could just as easily and correctly be:Const qualifies the object. A refresh, 5 years later, would be useful, though.But the 'Bugs' link is literally on the first page of the book.And the ergonomics of modern C++ look absolutely horrid compared to actual modern languages.> And the ergonomics of modern C++ look absolutely horrid compared to actual modern languages.True, but if you want to write "C as it is, with some niceties", then you're not talking about modern languages.Do you have a link?
When women are outraged about toxic male behavior that leads to sexual harassment, violence, rape culture, keeps them out of employment in certain fields, etc, they're derided and dismissed as radical feminist man-hating social justice warriors engaged in mob outrage and misogynistic witch-hunts.You can't possibly be ignorant enough to think that the existence of blatant (albeit throwaway) misogyny like the example here would be tolerated on HN? The current version of C is C18, released last year, so K&R is missing about 30 years of evolution. foo is a pointer to a constant int.But since the const qualifier for pointers can't be reordered like this, I think the point is that it's a better practice to have the const come after, so that it ALWAYS come after in your codebase regardless of the context?C++ rvalue references are a great example. Personally I think it's really refreshing and made me appreciate C and lot more.The first edition has been my go-to for introducing some of the newer (1999 and later) features of C (and some of the subtle footguns) to people. Jumping from denigrating men to celebrating a culture without denigration in a single sentence is impressive.> Is this casual sexism helpful to anyone, men or women?Weird. Does it mention free and realloc? I don't see them discrediting the entire book, I see them questioning a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do.Why aren't you? If we require at least one lower-case alpha character before star-const, we filter most of these out:Which would explain why it seems so odd to me; I spent a fair amount of time in C-style languages, but typically only ones that lack pointers.This was originally a comment about a book I thought was the same but merely had a similar title.Explanation of jargon seems to take priority over explanation of the language - the term "string literal" is explained before the concept of a function.You do realize he's doing that for illustrative purposes, right?By the very fact that this is a book, it presumes that the intended audience consists of visual learners. I remember back in the day sites saying "click on the ads - it helps us" but I don't think that's a thing any more. Modern C, Second Edition. "int const * foo"