Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Head First C#

Posted by samzenpus on Monday July 07, @02:24PM
from the read-all-about-it dept.
Michael J. Ross writes "For computer programmers who do not have a solid understanding of object-oriented programming (OOP), learning the C# programming language can be rather challenging, even if they have experience with C or C++, which at least would give them a head start over non-C programmers. Any developer in this situation may well want to begin the learning process with a book that aims to teach both OOP and C# in as gentle a manner as possible, with plenty of patient explanations and illustrative diagrams — such as those found in the book Head First C# by Andrew Stellman and Jennifer Greene." Read below for the rest of Michael's review.
Head First C#
author Andrew Stellman and Jennifer Greene
pages 778
publisher O'Reilly Media
rating 7/10
reviewer Michael J. Ross with Greg Hanson
ISBN 0596514824
summary A heavily illustrated intro to object-oriented programming and C#
Published by O'Reilly Media on 26 November 2007, under the ISBNs 0596514824 and 978-0596514822, Head First C# is one in a series of "Brain-Friendly Guides." The introduction to this particular book discusses how the series attempts to present the concepts and technical material in a way that is far more intellectually compelling and memorable than the approach currently taken by most books. Some of their guiding principles include: making things visual, oftentimes using novel and even outlandish diagrams; using a casual and conversational style; engaging the reader through exercises and questions; and spicing up the discussions with humor.

On the book's Web page, readers will find links to download the book's sample code, participate in a forum dedicated to the book, register their copy of the book, read and submit any errata (of which there are many), and submit a reader review and read those of other readers.

The book's material is organized into 15 chapters, covering the topics in a progressive order that would probably be most helpful for the inexperienced developer: the advantages to programming visual applications in C# and the Microsoft Visual Studio integrated development environment (IDE); building a simple application to get started; the C# code produced by Visual Studio; basic C# language constructs; an introduction to objects and their components; data types, including arrays and references, and how C# allows you to work with them; protecting an object's data from unintended access, through encapsulation; extending classes through inheritance and subclasses; finding and using class interfaces, and the advantages of doing so; storing data in arrays, lists, and dictionaries; saving data in files and directories, as well as working with file streams and serialization; exceptions and debugging techniques; event handling; how to build complex applications; creating user interfaces with controls and graphics; object destruction and garbage collection; and connecting your C# programs to databases using LINQ. Interspersed throughout the book are three C# labs, which encourage the reader to put into practice their new programming skills, and thus better internalize the ideas of OOP and C# covered in the chapters preceding each lab. The lab applications comprise a racetrack simulator, a simple adventure game, and a re-creation of Space Invaders.

When they see this book for the first time, some prospective readers may be overwhelmed by its size, clocking in at 778 pages. Yet a sizable portion of those pages will read faster than those of the typical programming book, largely due to all of the diagrams and whitespace, which really help to break up the material and make it more digestible. However, what many might perceive to be a strength of the book, could be seen as a weakness by others. In fact, if the unnecessary diagrams and redundant material were to be removed from the book, it might end up only half its current size. But this may only be a deterrent for people who are carrying this book around, or who tend to be impatient and wish to get right to the point of any book they are reading, or who may be upset by the extra trees chopped down to double the number of pages (the book does not appear to have been printed on recycled paper).

Despite Head First C# being clearly intended as an introductory book to object-oriented programming in general, and C# in particular, the target audience especially may be frustrated by all of the errata and other sources of confusion that they will encounter. This is especially true when readers are doing their best to implement all of the sample applications, and struggling when, for instance, the code does not match the figure provided, or even the code on another page. For example, on page 50, the authors instruct the reader to drag a new PictureBox onto a new form, but readers will probably struggle to figure out where to drag it from. On page 105, the authors instruct the reader to flip back and look through the code, to fill in some class diagrams, but they don't clarify what code should be considered. Readers' comments on the online bookseller sites, list far more similar problems. In fact, that there are so many technical errors in this book is quite remarkable given that the technical review team comprised no fewer than 14 individuals! How could so many eyeballs miss so much?

The authors make a real point of reviewing material explained earlier, which generally is an effective approach for this type of book. But the repetition sometimes becomes excessive — enough to annoy even the greenest novice. For example, on page 445, we find the question: "Okay, I still don't get it. Sorry. Why are there so many different kinds of exceptions, again?"

On the other hand, the book has some real strengths, including those mentioned above for making the material more approachable. In particular, when the reader becomes accustomed to the visual style of presenting concepts, he or she will probably find it a faster approach to learning the ideas. Admittedly, veteran developers may still prefer the more narrative style of conventional programming books — especially when they encounter rather convoluted diagrams, such as that on page 292. Yet the illustrations are particularly potent for explaining interfaces, as done in Chapter 7.

Although the book will be of most value to newer programmers, experienced C# programmers will find topics of interest and perhaps even some language details and analysis that they have never previously encountered. For instance, some of the questions posed in the sections titled "there are no Dumb Questions," could be valuable — such as the comparison of File versus FileInfo, and when to use one over the other. Also, some of the utilities could help the reader for future development, such as the hex dumper program on page 432.

Sadly, Head First C# is weighed down by excessive redundancy and an errata-to-number-of-technical-reviewers ratio possibly unequaled by any other programming book. Yet, for any programmer new to object orientation and C#, this introductory book should prove an extremely comprehensible and reader-friendly resource.

Michael J. Ross is a Web developer, writer, and freelance editor. Contributor Greg Hanson is a C# programmer in Fort Collins, Colorado.

You can purchase Head First C# from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @02:28PM (#24087009)
    Ouch, my eyeball!
  • C# is fine, (Score:5, Funny)

    by pitchpipe (708843) on Monday July 07, @02:29PM (#24087013)
    and C and C++ are all good languages, but I like C@!&$. It's the $h!7.
  • Granted, in this case I don't know the language C#, but in general I never really understood the Head First series, unless you really like printed introductions to languages. It would just make more sense to use free Internet resources to take your first steps in C#, and then get O'Reilly's e.g. C# 3.0 in a Nutshell [amazon.com] as a good desk reference. Tech books are expensive, so it just doesn't make sense to invest in a primer that, after you finish with it, is a paperweight.
  • by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Monday July 07, @02:32PM (#24087063)
    This book happens to be in our club's collection. Someone gave it to us, I think I found it redundant, and times. but then, most language-centered programming books are, to a certain extent. The first person in our group who read it went through and hi-lighted the page numbers with redundant material on them in blue, and hi-lighted the important pages in yellow. We were able to learn the language's syntax and nuances without reading through long-winded explanations about core concepts in OO or reviews of concepts just covered that way. Generally, I've always found the "language bible" books more helpful than these types of books. Does anyone share my sentiment?
    • by kalirion (728907) on Monday July 07, @02:37PM (#24087119)

      Did you read the intro? I have a couple Head First books (preps for Sun's EJB and Servlet exams) and I believe in the intro it states that the book uses repetition of important concepts to make them "sink in".

    • by Shados (741919) on Monday July 07, @02:38PM (#24087135)

      I agree, but at the same time, you have to be careful. Different languages have different takes at things someone may think as "obvious". A while ago I went to an interview for a .NET dev job, and the people interviewing me were very obviously all former C++ programmers recycled in C#. One of the questions they asked me was: "How do you do multiple inheritance in C#".

      My answer was the obvious: "There isn't any, you can only inherit from one class". They started arguing with me about how it WAS possible, and actually common, to do multiple inheritance in C#. After a bit of discussion, I realised that they were still thinking in C++ term, where an interface is nothing more than a fully abstract class, so even if you only use "interfaces", you ARE doing multiple inheritance (while in C#, there are -core- differences between a fully abstract class and an interface). They had skipped that part of the book thinking they didn't need it :)

  • by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday July 07, @02:38PM (#24087127) Homepage Journal

    Yet, for any programmer new to object orientation...

    How many can there be left these days?!? It's too easy to accumulate enough material for a good-sized book by starting from scratch and assuming the reader only knows how to read. Anyone could write a beginner's book on a computer language, without knowing the language too in depth, by just padding it with lots of remedial review material, that 99% of the readers don't need and don't want (to wade thru or pay for).

    • by east coast (590680) on Monday July 07, @02:58PM (#24087419)
      How many can there be left these days?!?

      I'm sure more roll off the old assembly line everyday. Just because you and your peers are seasoned vets...

      Also, this book came out at a real great time. With MS finally opening up to the hobbyist/novice programmer with their Express edition of their tools there is going to be a lot of n00bs out there.

      Sadly, it seems that too many here can't recall when they were still struggling with the concepts of OOP to see that there is a real audience for this level of writing.
    • by plasticsquirrel (637166) on Monday July 07, @03:02PM (#24087469)

      Yet, for any programmer new to object orientation...

      How many can there be left these days?!? It's too easy to accumulate enough material for a good-sized book by starting from scratch and assuming the reader only knows how to read. Anyone could write a beginner's book on a computer language, without knowing the language too in depth, by just padding it with lots of remedial review material, that 99% of the readers don't need and don't want (to wade thru or pay for).

      From what I have seen, there are many programmers who do not use OO languages. But what is disturbing is the number of programmers who do use OOP to some extent, but don't use it without even understanding its basic concepts.

      Dijkstra used to say that BASIC mutilated programmers' minds. But today, I think that C++ and VB have taken that role.

      • by bill_kress (99356) on Monday July 07, @06:23PM (#24090729)

        Please don't start with C++. It is terribly hard to actually get any good understanding of OO concepts in C++. I'd recommend Java, C# if you must.

        I'm not saying to make your career in that language or anything, but to figure out OO--get a language that gets out of your way and lets you see what you are doing. It should have almost no "Syntax" to worry about in itself.

        C++ is the opposite. And I've yet to see actual OO C++ code.

        Also, GUI programming in C++ (even if you ignore OO) is horrific. It's error prone and completely unnecessary. If you are really really stuck on being as close to the Windows GUI as possible, use C#, otherwise maybe Java.

        Sorry, but C++ was the last language created with a legacy where creating the compiler was so hard that you had to adapt the language towards compiler creation/optimization. Many of the features in C++ are simply there so that compilers are easy to write (or are there for legacy to be compatible with compilers made for that reason). A modern compiler/runtime is able to do all the stuff C++ could, and more--and in many cases faster.

        On the other hand, if you really want to understand computers and how a programming language works--if you want at the nuts and bolts--go to C, forgo C++ altogether.

  • Challenging? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Monday July 07, @02:47PM (#24087245)

    Why must a well designed language be challenging?

    I came at Java with some C plus some experience with a (proprietary) object oriented AI system. Java was trivially easy to pick up.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @02:57PM (#24087383)

    Getting head first is the only way I'll program in C#!

  • For computer programmers who do not have a solid understanding of object-oriented programming (OOP), learning the C# programming language can be rather challenging, even if they have experience with C or C++

    Well if you have "experience with C++" but no "solid understanding of OOP", there might already be a problem with your programming skills.

  • Another recipe book (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday July 07, @03:12PM (#24087593) Homepage

    These 700+ page books on programming languages have too much bloat. Usually because they're full of recipes, plus a rehash of introductory programming material.

    A really well written 50 page book on C# would be more useful. Especially if it came with a little summary card with the syntax. Code examples should be on an associated web site.

    Of course, it's a Microsoft product, so it has "strategic complexity", not minimalism.

  • by Frostalicious (657235) on Monday July 07, @03:29PM (#24087823) Journal
    Head first was pretty good, but I still prefer my old standby - "Balls Deep Into C#"
  • Can someone please explain what is wrong with C#? Something other than the fact it was created by Microsoft or simply that it is 'rubbish'.

    What features of the language do you have a problem with? Ok, so there's no multiple inheritance. What else?

    I've been doing ASP.NET via C# for a living for about 18 months now, and I've found it to be a perfectly servicable language. What's the problem with it?

    I hate Microsoft's business ethics just as much as the next /.er. I'm still going to judge their products based on their own merits.

        • by AppleOSuX (1080499) on Monday July 07, @04:20PM (#24088663)

          So? Linux is a blatant copy of some other *nix.

          Open Source software factories are constantly churning out copies of commercial software.

          What's your point?

        • by 0xABADC0DA (867955) on Monday July 07, @04:58PM (#24089361)

          MS don't deserve *too* much credit for this, since (unlike Sun) they were able to benefit from five or six years of someone else's experience when creating their language, but with the ability to start with a clean slate and no backwards-compatibility baggage.

          ... were able to, but didn't. The difference between C# vs Java was like C++ vs C. C++ and C# basically just add a lot of syntactix mumbo-jumbo onto a plain, reliable, usable language.

          Mandatory generics, iterator yield, implicitly typed variables, 'object initializers', extension methods, embedding C++ and SQL directly into the code, operator overloading, implicit conversions, conditional compilation, etc -- none of those C# features actually helps you write better programs, and a lot of the so-called improvements in C# just make it a complicated mess.

          The main problem in C++ and C# is that just looking at a statement you can never be sure what it does without poking around a lot of places (in Java a statement always says exactly what it does). A simple statement like "x.y = a[b]" can involve at least 6 different method calls. In Java is always means assign array element to a field.

          Like C++, there are some people who will claim more features are better no matter how much more complicated (and generally the 'never enough features' crowd lives in Redmond). But at the rate C# is gaining kitchen sinks I think it will only be a few years until people switch back to Java because it doesn't have all that baggage.

        • by encoderer (1060616) on Monday July 07, @06:20PM (#24090663)

          We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

          Java was not revolutionary, it was evolutionary. Sun certainly had a lot of 'prior art' to guide them when they developed Java.

          I'm sitting here wondering what you think made Java so special that it was, by your logic, in a class unto itself? It wasn't the first OO language, it wasn't the first platform-agnostic language, it didn't expose a new and wild syntax, etc.

          Java was successful not because it was groundbreaking: It was successful because it took all the best innovations from the existing languages of the mid-90s and coupled them with a familiar syntax and a large and cruft-free library.

          The framework ecosystem gave a further boost by giving C and C++ programmers a route to web development that didn't involve terrible pain (CGI) or the loss of self respect (VB Script).

          I imagine Anders had similar goals for C#.