What do you think?


Thinking in C
Thinking in C++ is ideal for anyone already familiar with C who now wants to learn C++. Eckel has synthesized more than five years of C++ teaching and programming experience into a well-structured course that moves step-by-step through each important C++ concept. He highlights poorly-understood C++ features like virtual functions, which can improve productivity.
816 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Bruce Eckel
36 books61 followersBruce 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 6, 2013
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.
January 11, 2013
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
March 13, 2011
Typos, no errata, mediocre examples. Still, a fair introduction.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews




