Thinking In C Plus Plus 2Nd Edition

by Bruce Eckel

Despite C++'s syntactic similarities to C, the two languages are fundamentally different in nature--a fact that can complicate the task of learning C++ if you already know C. Thinking in C++ explains C++ to C programmers not just from the perspective of writing code, but from the perspective of software engineering and design--how do you conceptualize programs that exploit C++'s capabilities? With readable prose, Bruce Eckel offers a compelling explanation of what object-oriented languages in general and C++ in particular have to offer and teaches you how to apply it. The book covers not only introductory topics but advanced ones such as multiple inheritance and templates.

Genres: Programming, Nonfiction, Reference, Technology, Computers, Software, Technical

Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Bruce Eckel is a computer programmer, author, and consultant.
Eckel's best known works are Thinking in Java and the two-volume series Thinking in C++, aimed at programmers wanting to learn the Java or C++ programming languages, respectively, particularly those with little experience of object-oriented programming.
Eckel was a founding member of the ANSI/ISO C++ standard committee.

Reviews

[Mark Procarione · Rating 5 out of 5]

In-depth coverage of every useful feature C++ has to offer. An invaluable reference for anyone needing to learn the ins and outs of C++. Also has an excellent chapter covering the abstraction of objects. A must-read.

[Donald Plugge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being an IT guy, I have lots of programming manuals and books. Bruce Eckel is one of the better technical writers. I haven't reviewed many of my technical books for Goodreads. And this one is rather old, yet it is full of good information on both the specific language of C++; on coding philosophies and on specific techniques. Bruce wrote a similar tome on Java. This book can be a template for how to write a good reference manual.

dgp

[The Bird from Twin Peaks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Typos, no errata, mediocre examples. Still, a fair introduction.