|
yes, only a few pages, and for most of the time, I use high quality open source projects codes as my spec and coding standard.
Regards,
unruledboy_at_gmail_dot_com
http://www.xnlab.com
|
|
|
|
|
Usually I read the language reference, but never the specification. (That's for the compiler guys  )
And, as libraries tend to get bigger and bigger (.NET ...), only parts of their reference.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to read the reference, just not enough time, I know theres loads of stuff in there I would just love to use if I only knew it was there. Problem is I keep falling asleep....
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
you can't learn a language by reading a reference, you need tutorials and real world examples. This survey is based on an idiotic proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people can. We call them mathematicians.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no mathematician; I'm a pedant and a Theoretician[^] -- a big, dense book is my primary weapon. 
|
|
|
|
|
I have read through specifications for Fortran, C, Ada, back when I did compiler work. Not much call for compilers anymmore, I've moved on...
I've skimmed C# books. Wouldn't even know where to find a real specification. I'm not implementing C#, just finding how to use it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over 40% of people have voted for "I haven't, and won't".
My $.02 on this subject: Beside being utterly boring, language specifications are like code comments - 95% of what your read is useless. Or as Samual Johnson said: "What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure."
|
|
|
|
|
Just because others are worse doesn't mean you are good.
One should have read some language specifications, just to be able to consult it in case of "that's funny!" - especially if your language is as complex as C++. I've seen many incorrect "compiler bug!" posts that are rather a misunderstanding of the C++ standard.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: One should have read some language specifications, just to be able to consult it in case of "that's funny!" - especially if your language is as complex as C++. I've seen many incorrect "compiler bug!" posts that are rather a misunderstanding of the C++ standard.
I agree that when confronted with a subtle error or question one should consult the spec, and I have done so (especially before screaming "compiler bug"). But consulting the spec for targeted information on a particular topic is quite different from reading the entire thing, much less retaining all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
No need to read it cover to cover, jsut trying to figure out how it's written.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server
|
|
|
|
|
... no, just the interesting parts.
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree - my choice would be "read parts of it".
I look into the specs when I need, when I meet some... dilemma 
|
|
|
|
|
Admit it, by "interesting parts", you mean the pictures! 
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server
|
|
|
|
|
They have pictures now? /me "reads" a ton
|
|
|
|
|
JRiggs wrote: the interesting parts
That would be the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
I add a dot to an object and intellisense gives me the spec of what that object can do (yes I know that's a framework spec, not a language spec). Outside of that about the best I have time for is a "whats new in Language X version Y"
Would be nice to have the time to read up on everything a language can do, but these days I've got multiple contracts on the go, and with some of them being only 150 hours in total  I survive on what I've learnt from experience. Last big exploration I did was when NET 3.0 CTP came out back in 2006 I think.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
