Dalabar Mrunal rated it really liked it Sep 26, Bhavik Makwana rated it really liked it Feb 27, James Anderson rated it it was amazing Feb 13, Electronics from the Ground Up: Nasia rated it grund liked it Feb 04, Mariam rated it it was amazing Sep 17, John rated it really liked it Jan 17, Herb presents its content in a useful, directed and thoughtful approach that is representative of his ability to communicate clearly and concisely even difficult concepts. Looked and felt like new. Apr 19, Jonathan is currently reading it. Share your thoughts with other customers. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go.
|Published (Last):||25 November 2009|
|PDF File Size:||5.58 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.40 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
His books have mistakes that are catchable only by very knowledgeable software developers, who do not write for periodicals which only do cursory reviews of the glut of computer books - I know, I used to review computer books. These reviews are highly technical and found on usenet etc where real programmers post them.
The problem with wikipedia and why I quit bothering to write articles is any careful look at Schildt I mean, anyone whose name is in the Jargon File of all places is automatically notable in the computer science world!
I do not understand the reason for wanting --published-- sources for a --computer science-- author where most material will be online, not published. This seems like a self-defeating rule.
At least preserve the links to its source! This is what makes wikipedia a joke. Book covers are well established as fair use, and this is a vintage book cover probably few people have ever seen that sets Schildt into his time. I also gave up on Wikipedia a while back because it was clear that Certain People are only interested in blindly enforcing what they perceive to be the citation requirements for articles, and they will delete anything not conforming to this requirement to the letter, in spite of the fact that they have absolutely zero interest in the subject matter.
I ask you to leave Criticism out at least until the BLP case is adjudicated. Edward G. The references to criticism seems to have been overstated and could be applied to almost any author writing about C during the period. Not suitable for an encyclopedia article.
Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not aware of anything new. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template , you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.
Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Schildt was targeted as was Kathy Sierra and this beast walks again here.
Schildt empirically confirmed his claims on Microsoft platforms. People, whose knowledge of non-MS platforms is matched by snobbery, failed to confirm his results but he was writing for actual computer programmers, including some about to get fired for not being able to change arrogantly written C programs in an arrogantly promoted, but deficient language.
Schildt wrote from the outside of an unethical "standardisation" effort which tacitly made the false claim that a "standardization" effort will make a bad language reliable and safe, and it appears to me that some members of the effort took out their dishonesty on a safe target rather than question a corporate-dominated effort.
This is the real bullshit. But, he was a member. Since when is gossip a wikipedia source? I am speaking in his defense because clumps of people posing as wikipedia editors and usenet programming authorities are pursuing personal vendettas against contributors so unlike them. The case of Kathy Sierra was one incident. I have also found Jacob Navia, the creator of the lccwin compiler, being harassed on usenet. As a computer author with a smallish reputation exogenous to the internet I find that the internet and the blogosphere is being used by impotent corporate drones on company time to vent hatred and resentment of people with the balls to exit the corporate system, because any reputation, no matter how small, exogenous with respect to the internet and the so-called blogosphere triggers swarms of abuse.
These are websites and usenet posts by voting ISO C committee members and nobody has voiced any doubt that they were in fact written by these committee members. PS: The comp. I can even accept the current trimmed version. I am merely against completely keeping the allegations out of the article. As for the general issue of BLP, as I understand it, the purpose of these policies was to prevent personal attacks, claims that concern the privacy of the described person or unsourced nonsensical allegations from being made in articles about living persons—such as in the Seigenthaler case.
It was certainly not meant to prevent relevant criticism from being described. At least where such criticism is directed at the public work of the person, rather than e. Even if this criticism is harsh and its description in effect discredits the work of the person to some degree. I agree that we must always be very careful in such cases, though. But there is also a secondary purpose of preventing legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation under Californian law.
Making things "a little stricter than what is legally necessary" is not only reasonable, but necessary concerning encyclopedic standards; on the other hand, it can easily lead to inappropriate self-censorship if applied too dogmatically, and that is certainly not desirable. BTW, I am not insisting on mentioning the "bullschildt" thing. Given that the section is so short now, mentioning it seems to give it undue weight. The quiet discussion above makes me sick.
In , Mario Savio was talking about a cold war system. In so doing, they ensure the private fortunes of the nomenklatura who must be obeyed. Nilges, author, "Build Your Own.
Net Language and Compiler" —Preceding unsigned comment added by The purpose of the "no original research" rule is to make it impossible, to give a concrete example, that a single editor who believes in his own personal conspiracy theory that nobody else is interested in can advertise it on Wikipedia. If he is banned we should probably revert his comments rather than reply to them.
The article was created to destroy Schildt. My editor at Apress started a company and has written many computer books, but no article exists for him. Therefore, the article was created without due diligence to see if computer authors, unmentioned and uncited in the media or the scholarly press, should have wikipedia pages.
This matter has gone to BLP. Until it is properly resolve, stop vandalizing the page. I was of course referring to the following passage: For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.
My advice is to delete any comments he posts, as he has proven himself incapable of remaining civil. TallNapoleon talk , 13 May UTC For the record, I contributed a major analysis of the Rand-philosopher issue which was recommended as a journal article by other editors, and a rewrite that is supported by neutral editors.
For th record, there is a growing amount of protest against the way I and people like me are treated on wikipedia, in censorship without discussion. Nilges I got advice from this AN thread. The important points for me are: Since User:Spinoza is indefinitely blocked, if he edits using an IP, that represents block evasion, and the IP can be blocked without further ado. The only negative statement about the author, as opposed to the book, is the following one: "Herbert Schildt has a knack for clear, readable text, describing a language subtly but quite definitely different from C.
I counted three negative statements about the author, each expressing indignation about specific details of the book. The same arguments as for the previous reference apply. The paragraph consists mainly of guarded statements "It has been suggested", "Many people on the net recommend". But it can serve to corroborate the review of the book which it cites, giving it the unusual status of a web page cited in a printed book , and especially the statement that the book contains numerous errors and omissions, including a few pages of the standard itself.
It would be a good thing if someone could find a review of one of his books in a source like the ACM Communications; it would also be good if we could counterbalance the negative reviews with more positive reviews by other experts. Open any Schildt C book at random, and you are likely to find at least one error - not typos and stuff, but real misunderstandings about the language - and quite possibly several such errors. The concerns exist. The bugs exist. Since when was Wikipedia interested in concealing facts?
I stumbled across a userfied version of the old article, and as much as it pains me to admit it, Edward was right--the weight given to criticism was entirely undue.
However, it should be proportional to the size of the rest of the article. TallNapoleon talk , 15 May UTC Which version are you referring to when you say that "the weight given to criticism was entirely undue"? The version currently under dispute? As for expert reviews, the two obvious ones which are both written by voting ISO C committee members and acknowledged experts on the subject , are Web-published.
What I was thinking would be really good would be a critical review published in a technical magazine, online or in print. Nilges, a. Spinoza note the block , obviously has an agenda here, as demonstrated by plenty of material on this talk page alone. The alt. In addition to his activity on Wikipedia, Nilges apparently pops up to defend Schildt anywhere his work is criticized. Phrases like "persecution of Herbert Schildt for being a good teacher and writer", "malign, systematic harassment and bullying", and "Fascist campaign" and these are only from one post demonstrate how over the top Nilges is.
As far as I can tell, no death or other threats have been made against Schildt. Furthermore, even if there were any threats involved, the criticism of his work would still stand, and that is what is relevant here.
He makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that "people who can neither teach nor write" are behind all of the criticism. The dismissal of errors pointed out by Feather as "matter[s] of style and literary criticism" makes little sense, as Feather is not commenting on the writing style of the book.
Programming style is obviously a valid target for criticism. The accusation is that criticism of Schildt is somehow linked back to the authors and publishers of competing books is both far-fetched and irrelevant.
At times, it seems like Nilges is just coming up with distracting nonsense, like when he throws around completely irrelevant literary references e. On his old talk page , you can see just how little understanding Nilges has of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I was introduced to this "controversy" tonight by complete chance via a Slashdot thread. However, since he is banned, his posts are easily recognised, and there is general agreement here that they are not wanted, we can simply remove all further unconstructive comments from him.
The only thing Nilges can and does do is draw the attention of strict BLP enforcers to this article.
C++ from the Ground Up, Third Edition
MFC Programming from the Ground Up