Recommend Books Please

M

Micus

Hello all,
Can someone recommend books for an unmanaged VC developer moving to
managed extensions. I've searched previous messages (no books found) as well
as the amazon.com reviews (no standout reviews). Sorry for the repeat (as
I'm sure it is).
Thanks,
M
 
W

William DePalo [MVP VC++]

Micus said:
Can someone recommend books for an unmanaged VC developer moving to
managed extensions. I've searched previous messages (no books found) as well
as the amazon.com reviews (no standout reviews). Sorry for the repeat (as
I'm sure it is).

"Essential Guide to Managed Extensions to C++" (Apress) by Challa and
Laksberg, ISBN:1-893115-28-3
"Programming with Managed Extensions for MS Visual C++ .Net" (MS Press) by
Grimes, ISBN:0-7356-1724-4

Regards,
Will
 
G

Gerhard Menzl

William said:
"Programming with Managed Extensions for MS Visual C++ .Net" (MS Press) by
Grimes, ISBN:0-7356-1724-4

I have bought a copy of this book, and I cannot recommend it. It is by
far the most confusing, disorganized, and badly written technical book I
have ever had the misfortune to work myself through. Instead of getting
an overview over the concepts first, the reader is instantly immersed
into a jumble of technical details. On page 5 (!) the author already
feels the necessity of stepping into MSIL code and into assembly
language immediately after that. There are lots of places where he does
this, but hardly any diagrams or figures that would help to give a big
picture. One of the most unnerving things about the book is an incessant
series of unspecified "links" ("as will be shown later in this section",
"as I pointed out earlier"), up to three on the same page (see 493),
that evoke a constant feeling of incompleteness. The book also seems
severely out of focus to me: on the one hand, rather complicated issues,
such as managed resources, get cursory treatment at best; on the other
hand, one and a half pages are devoted to the usage of the really
groundbreaking feature of the Find dialog box in the code editor. On the
whole, my impression is that a few years worth of personal experience
with Managed C++ and .NET has been compiled in haste, without wasting
much time on proper organization or didactic issues.

Gerhard Menzl

Humans may reply by replacing the obviously faked part of my e-mail
address with "kapsch".
 
G

Guest

Also take a look at "Managed C++ and .NET Development" by Stephen Fraser (Apress) and the new entry into the market, "Visual C++ .NET 2003 Kick Start" by Kate Gregory (SAMS). Both are aimed at C++ programmers attempting to move into MC++. The Deitel group also has a text "Visual C++ .NET for Experienced Programmers" that has a lot of detailed info and code examples, but it is targeted more nearly at experienced "programmers" than at experienced "C++ programmers", so while useful for learning MC++ ab initio, it doesn't really help with the transition from C++ (until the last part of the book, on interoperability). You can probably pick up a second-hand copy of MS's "Step by Step" book on VC++ .NET 2003 fairly cheap, and certainly you can do so for the 2002 version. It's good for a quick overview of MC++ programming, but not for any in-depth examination of it, so it serves to show quickly what the "extensions" look like, although not really much about how best to use them.
 
W

William DePalo [MVP VC++]

Gerhard Menzl said:
I have bought a copy of this book, and I cannot recommend it.

OK.

I have read both of the books I mentioned and keep them around for
reference. I'd agree that the MS press book is a more scholarly or pedantic
treatment of the topic while the Challa and Laksberg text is strictly
pragmatic survey of what you need to know.

Regards,
Will
 
G

Gerhard Menzl

William said:
I have read both of the books I mentioned and keep them around for
reference. I'd agree that the MS press book is a more scholarly or pedantic
treatment of the topic while the Challa and Laksberg text is strictly
pragmatic survey of what you need to know.

It's neither scholarly nor pedantic. Both adjectives imply a
well-conceived structure, but my point is that this is exactly what is
missing.
 
W

William DePalo [MVP VC++]

Gerhard Menzl said:
It's neither scholarly nor pedantic. Both adjectives imply a
well-conceived structure, but my point is that this is exactly what is
missing.

Yes, I understood you the first time. I still disagree.

Regards,
Will
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top