You missed the point. I never said, "You don't need pointers." Just the point of the examples are not the pointers but the method of declaring a type (as in my example about arrays). I am just saying that the point (array declaration) gets lost in the pointers.
Many of these examples seem to target novice users like me. I am just suggesting a way to clarify example code for the new user. Okay, now I see where your comment about typedef-ing string came from. If I wanted to teach a new Eiffel user about class ARRAY, I would avoid complicated (to a new user) constructs. So, even though it is simple to me, I would not use a: ARRAY [STRING] because class STRING is one of the few classes in Eiffel that give new users a hard time. And I certainly would not start with a: ARRAY [ARRAY [STRING]] I want my use of the array (the point of the example) to not get obfuscated (that's a C term isn't it?) by the type of the objects the array holds. BTW, my code *is* full of pointers...and full of bugs too. [Relax, I don't blame the bugs on the poiters--ust my poor use of them.] So back to work. --- In [email protected], Tyler Littlefield <ty...@...> wrote: > > I'm not sure where the idea that you "don't need pointers in c++ comes from," > as I've seen it here multiple times. Just because your learning c++ doesn't > mean you won't use pointers, though, and being able to read the code is just > as important as being able to write it. Everyone that writes code isn't going > to typedef their strings for the people that don't understand how to read > pointers. I don't want to come across as rude at all with it, but I really > highly suggest you get used to the pointer idea. If you want to use a lot of > different libraries, you'll end up using pointers sooner or later. > > Thanks, > Tyler Littlefield > http://tds-solutions.net > Twitter: sorressean > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Jimmy Johnson wrote: > > > I just want to say thanks again to all the people on this forum who have > > provided so much help to me. But I have a suggestion to those of you who > > provide sample code and books. > > > > Don't use intergers as the central type in the demo. > > > > For example, when describing arrays most examples go something like this: > > > > int my_array[10]; > > > > or: > > > > int* my_array; > > my_array = new int[10]; > > > > As a non-C programmer I find this confusing; I can't separate the pointers > > from the objects. Especially when the writer then goes into the benifits of > > pointer arithmatic (of which it seems supporters of C are very proud). > > > > Oh, and don't use strings either [char* is confusing too]. Use an abstract > > type such as PERSON or MY_TYPE. So the example becomes: > > > > person my_array[10]; > > > > Now it is easy for us non-c programmers to tell the difference between an > > access to an object and a pointer manipulation. > > > > Just my two cents worth. > > > > Jimmy J. Johnson > > > > >
