home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: user1.mnsinc.com!huang
- From: huang@mnsinc.com (Szu-Wen Huang)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: [Q] Comments on "Algorithm in C" or "Algorithm in C++"
- Followup-To: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Date: 11 Apr 1996 14:29:40 GMT
- Organization: Monumental Network Systems
- Message-ID: <4kj50m$1ul@news1.mnsinc.com>
- References: <4kgj3f$nug@sun.rhbnc.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: user1.mnsinc.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Jim Hu (jim@gl.rhbnc.ac.uk) wrote:
-
- : I briefly compared the two books and found they are identical. Only
- : differences are the covers and several words in the first chapter.
- : The same contents for the two books made me wonder if they are really
- : worth to buy. Surely "Algorithms in C++" can not be called "SOMETHING in C++"
- : if it does not uses the C++ feature. Before I spend money on it,
- : I really want to hear any comments on the books from you. Or could
- : you recommendate me another algorithm books on C/C++.
-
- Sedgewick's is a definitive work on relatively simple data structures
- and algorithms. As for the C/C++ stunt, you can probably blame it on
- publishers aching to sell a few more copies :). In any case, what you
- refer to as "C++ feature" is basically the difference between C and C++,
- and not using inheritance/polymorphism/whizbangstructure doesn't make
- his program not C++ ;). If it compiles in a C++ compiler, it's C++ ;).
- Seriously, it's a good book... just don't buy both the C and the C++
- versions. :)
-