Summary and Info
I am not a C++ expert by any means, but whoever titled this book didn't attempt to read it.And I may be completely unfair, I am reviewing a computer book 7 _years_ after publication.The title clearly indicates a book, where a sample program is given, and then an explanation of how and why it is wrong, and finally how to avoid those mistakes.Instead, you're given a program listing (in standard black&white like most books instead of the color highlighted of a modern editor or IDE), and basically told there is a problem within the category of the chapter. Then it gives a hint & answer number (but not the page number those items reside on). Occasionally in the hints you receive the output of the program. A programming puzzle book of this nature could be quite interesting, but if that is the goal, mark it as a puzzle book and give it a difficulty rating.Some of the problems with this book include the fact that the publisher's spellcheck fixed the bug on page 30, so that there is none to find. Page 32 would be clear from syntax highlighting (and has needless use of pointers and alters comment style part-way though so that the 'broken' one will compile). Chapter 5 is about C, not C++, while much C appears in C++ the book is about the later, not the former. Many of the bugs come from ignoring basic features of the language or coding idioms. In C++ you avoid the preprocessor as much as possible because C++ gives you language tools (templates to replace macros, global consts to avoid #DEFINEs). The book avoids const correctness and RAII.So, what is good about the book?The humor posted between the puzzles, including indicating what of the story is folklore. "This page left unintentionally blank." 'BASIC programmer: if I type WALK will it go slower?' Given the Marketplace price (instead of Amazon's new) it could be a 5 star computer humor book, with a bunch of other junk also in it, if you have that mindset when you pick it up.
Review and Comments
Rate the Book
How Not to Program in C++: 111 Broken Programs and 3 Working Ones, or Why Does 2+2=5986 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 ratings.