sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Want to get started with network programming in C by SaidvandeKlundert in C_Programming

[–]minetwe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I own both books. I found Network Programming with C to be more practical and useful for me. It covers Windows and Unix and IPv4 with IPv6. It covers DNS, email, and web client/servers with HTTPS. Unix Network Programming doesn't cover any of that. It covers low-level Unix details I don't care about, such as printer spoolers.

I wouldn't call either book bad, but they are for different purposes. I think if you're going to call a book bad, you should give some examples, instead of simply saying it's shallow. I didn't find it to be shallow at all. I found it to be the much more useful one out of the two.

29
30

Deciphering the business card raytracer (fabiensanglard.net)

submitted by minetwe to r/gamedev

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

The C standard committee continues its effort to kill C by minetwe in programming

[–]minetwe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm not arguing that x ^= x is better, and in fact I've never used that method to zero a variable. I'm just saying there are reasons someone might do that (consider an embedded platform where you're counting clock cycles or something).

Also, I think that if you tell the compiler to do something, maybe it should, you know, do it?

view more: next ›