Brings you the most efficient solutions to more than 400 of the practical programming challenges you face every day in C++ FAQ. Paper. C++ (Computer programming language).
I came across the C++ FAQ Lite while working an internship and developing in an operating system that made use of many of C++'s lesser-known features. The site was tremendously valuable for me and my intermediate (on the noob/intermediate/advanced/expert scale) knowledge of C++.
Based on this experience and my preference for reading dead trees over a monitor, I bought this book with some other C++ books to study the language further. It was a bad choice.
The website outdates the book by almost 10 years now, including significant material, not just updates. I guess I'm still alright with the equivalent of supporting a band by buying a t-shirt.
The authors maintain they have a practical viewpoint, and they're long on material in support of the viewpoint and short on its criticism. Some things are declared evil without a lot of supporting information, including everything C-like.
Just like C++ Primer Plus, the format of the examples gets really old. Consistently, there are a few name sets used. Shape/Circle/Ellipse/etc for inheritence, Car/Engine for composition, Fred/Barney/Wilma for classes when inheritance doesn't matter, and functions f, g, and h. I'm not sure if it is a positive thing that these conventions are used--do they let you focus on the point, or do they allow you to zone out and miss the message when you thought you got it because it all seemed so familiar?
I recommend taking this book (and the website) along with the red pill, a response website written by Yossi Kreinin called C++ Frequently Questioned Answers. You at least owe it to yourself to read the summary.
But seriously--skip this book. Make use of the website if you need--it is great for a quick, refreshing answer.
Covers a lot of stuff that is not really related to the language like DCOM, CORBA or object orientation. May be strength or pitfall depending on your point of view. For me it was good but not great.