My C++ teacher is having us get a book from 2002. Is this a bad

[X] Abort

>>55619674
Well if they changed too much then older programs would stop working.

The basics haven't changed much, but there are recent C++ specs that you really should be learning instead

Please tell me OP. Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling me now?

>>55619918
I'm legitimately this stupid. I try not to be but I guess it's just who I am. Sorry

>>55619941
There are various C++ standards, but no matter which one you learn, if you learn the language itself good enough, you'll know the differences and be able to learn a new standard yourself.
That book may or may not be good, I haven't read it, but give it a try and don't be so negative.
No bad signs here, enjoy programming and good luck!

your teacher is a dumbass.

>>55619674
>>55619793
>>[X] Abort

[X] Abort

But not because of this book, but because of your university, you should't have a teacher dedicated to one language, you should't have any sort of dedication of simply one language.
Instead you should learn patterns, mathematics, and all the science stuff, AI etc.

Picking a language is all up to you, C is fine, C++ too sure, but if you know all the basic ACTUAL science stuff you can pick ANY language in matter of weeks and master it within a year or so (not C++ tho).

So yeah, quit this dumb school and move to something better, or if you don't mind wasting your time, pajeet sure go ahead read this book, and 100 like it too...

This >>55620096 here. It's bullshit, don't listen to him.

>>55620096
I'm at community college taking as many classes as I can before I transfer to university to save money. I don't have much other choices in terms of transferable CS classes

>>55620096
not entirely true. I got to a top 10 cs school and we have classes specific to c++ for upper classman because the industry requires the language (algorithms and design patterns / theory are taught in other language / environments). If all one has available to them is classes which teach a language then I agree however

File: literally.png (416KB, 391x513px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 391x513px

>>55620096
When you learn programming at a school that does this, they usually teach you
>patterns, mathematics, and all the science stuff, AI etc.

t. someone who goes to a uni where they force java on you until Programming III

>>55619674
Modern C++14 doesn't even resemble that old crap. It's like a whole new language!

Lightweight, safe, concurrent, multiparadigm, type-inference, lambdas, even more amazing template metaprogramming possiblities: truly a modern language made for the 21st century!

>>55619674
>OOP is bad because it's old
I wish that web hipsters and Haskell hipsters would someday learn that functional programming dates back to the fucking 60s and is unsexy as fuck and basically just bootstrapped lambda calculus.

C++ is C++. The language is always the same, just the syntax slightly changes.