Re:Brian Kernighan's new book: D is for Digital
by koeselitz on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @10:47AM
(#3698649)
In 1978, he co-wrote "The C Programming Language." 34 years later, he's published "D Is For Digital." At this rate, he'll be done with the whole alphabet by the year 2760.
Re:Brian Kernighan's new book: D is for Digital
by blairbits on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @08:28AM
(#3698070)
After a cursory glance, it seems a lot like Code by Petzold[1], or at least a similar concept in less detail. I loved that book, and I know most others did as well. I'd love to take a look at it.
Re:Brian Kernighan's new book: D is for Digital
by brudgers on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @07:56AM
(#3697989)
There are probably more than a few HN'ers who are interested in Dennis Richie's take on these things because of their interest in what he thinks. It is analogous to the reasons HN'ers are interested in PG's thoughts about High School.
Re:Brian Kernighan's new book: D is for Digital
by dangravell on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @10:48AM
(#3698653)
In the wake of the ignorance highlighted by SOPA et al this book seems prescient. It sounds like a useful tome to pass on to older, yet intelligent, relatives so they can better understand how and what information they enter or leave on the Internet is collected.
Re:Brian Kernighan's new book: D is for Digital
by spinchange on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @09:44AM
(#3698345)
Some other neat things by and about Mr. Kernighan linked to on this page. Even though this book focuses on rudimentary concepts, I feel like I have to have it on my shelf.
[1] http://www.charlespetzold.com/code/
I just starting learning programming in January, and both Code and D is for digital were indispensable for the context they gave me.
However, we probably have acquaintances and relatives who could benefit.
If Kernighan explains a concept that seems obvious, it's almost certainly because most people haven't a clue about it.
I'm sort of curious to read it, too.
But another collaboration with Rob Pike on a book about Go is likely.
Now we have already C11, and AFAIK there isn't a single compiler that fully supports C99, let alone C11.
Then we have companies like Microsoft which nowadays care only about C++, and won't improve the C standard support beyond C89 on their compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
Plus not all projects are allowed to use gcc or clang.
Case in point, I worked in a project where the UNIX compilers used had to be the standard vendor ones for Aix, HP-UX and Solaris.