> jump to navigation

edk's notes

on "Learn C The Hard Way"

Learn C The Hard Way is (irritatingly) a frequent subject of debate in ##c on freenode, so I've had several occasions to reflect on its value and what it does so wrong.

It boils down to this: apart from being completely wrong in places, it's dogmatic and is essentially teaching—if at all—by rote. Most pages begin with an introduction with almost no technical content. They follow with a large sample program you are to type into your computer by hand, then a bulleted explanation of what is going on. Finishing up, we have some expected output from the program and a list of questions you can think about for "extra credit".

When I read the book it took determination to read anything after the sample program; there's no motivation to do so. I don't have evidence for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's common for readers to copy the sample program, run it, see that its output matches Zed's expected output, and move on.

I suspect this is the reason for Zed's good feedback: People just read his book, learn roughly what C syntax looks like by repetition, get to the end and feel successful.

I mentioned I find LCTHW dogmatic, so let me give a couple of examples of that:

C gives you power over the false reality of abstraction and liberates you from stupidity.

This sounds like a recruitment pitch from some kind of cult. It's also objectively wrong—C is an abstraction.

An IDE, or "Integrated Development Environment" will turn you stupid.

This is ridiculous. I think it's a good idea to learn how to write C without an IDE, but dismissing all of a certain kind of tool for all uses is just poor engineering.

Finally (almost), and I mention this because it's directly relevant to the quality of the book, I don't get the impression Zed is a particularly capable C programmer. He makes amateurish mistakes all over the place, and people who learn from his book will make those mistakes too. Readers are taught three somewhat broken hash functions without any exposition of their weaknesses and the situations in which they should be avoided. In Exercise 43, we see an implementation of standard deviation:

return sqrt( (st->sumsq - ( st->sum * st->sum / st->n)) / (st->n - 1) );

This does look like a reasonable approach for computing standard deviation, but in fact suffers from catastrophic loss of precision for certain data distributions. This might have been an excellent way to introduce the problems with floating-point and strategies for mitigating them; instead, it's ignored and readers are left to make this mistake in real programs. I can only assume the author simply doesn't realise this kind of problem exists.

To add insult to injury, the book impresses upon the reader the importance of "safe" coding what feels like every other page—while teaching practices that will leave your programs riddled with errors, including potential denial-of-service vulnerabilities.

Please don't read this book. If you do, you will become a worse C programmer—even if you didn't know any C when you started. The total value of its content is less than nothing. Buy or borrow a copy of K&R2.

Thank you for reading this, and if you decide to ignore me and read LCTHW anyway, please at least consider skipping its exercises on hashtables and statistics.


With these objections covered, I'd also like to address the book's numerous technical errors, which don't seem to get much exposure. I don't know if that's because it's so boring to list all of them, or because nobody reads enough of the words to notice them, but I feel this needs to be done. I don't promise to get all the way through the book:

Exercise 5

A variable declaration and assignment at the same time. This is how you create a variable, with the syntax type name = value;. In C statements (except for logic) end in a ';' (semicolon) character.

This is initialization, not assignment (§6.7.9). Also, in C, declarations are not statements.

Exercise 6

Character Declared with char, written with a ' (single-quote) character around the char, and then printed with %c.

In fact, single-quoted constants in C are int, not char.

Exercise 8

The use of %ld to print sizes is sloppy. C99—which, given the prevalence of // comments, I can only assume the book is written in—provides %zu, which is always the correct format specifier for printing sizes.

Exercise 9

There's also two syntaxes for doing a string: char name[4] = {'a'} on line 6 vs. char *another = "name" on line 44.

The equivalent syntaxes would be char name[4] = {'a'}; and char name[4] = "a";. The book claims that the two snippets offered "work out to be the same thing", which just isn't true.

to the C language there's no difference between a string and an array of characters.

This is not true. There is no string type, but not all arrays of characters are strings, nor are all strings arrays of characters.

Exercise 10

From this you should be able to figure out that in C you make an "array of strings" by combining the char *str = "blah" syntax with the char str[] = {'b','l','a','h'} syntax to construct a 2-dimensional array.

I'm not entirely sure what "combining" these has to do with the resulting syntax the text offers, but in any case it's not a 2-dimensional array. char *states[] = ... is an array of pointers, which has advantages and disavantages compared with actual multidimensional arrays (better termed arrays of arrays).
But you're not going to find out what those advantages are because the book will resolutely pretend they're the same thing.

Exercise 11

In C, there's not really a "boolean" type

C has had a boolean type (_Bool) for 16 years.

instead any integer that's 0 is "false" and otherwise it's "true"

Also any floating-point value and any pointer value that is null, though I suppose one could argue that this is an omission rather than an error.

Exercise 12

Something common in every language is the if-statement

This is obviously not true, although it's also so stupid I almost didn't include it.

There is no else if construction in C; it's an effect of the syntax of if.

You don't need the {} braces to enclose the code, but it is very bad form to not use them

I disagree, but this is not an unreasonable position. Why, then, is if without braces used in subsequent exercises 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 43, 46 and 47?

Exercise 14

The arguments to is* are not converted to (unsigned char), potentially causing undefined behaviour.

Exercise 15

You however need 2 levels, since names is 2-dimensional, that means you need char ** for a "pointer to (a pointer to char)" type

Conflating multidimensional arrays and arrays of pointers again…

To C ages is a location in the computer's memory where all of these integers start. It is also an address, and the C compiler will replace anywhere you type ages with the address of the very first integer in ages.

This is incorrect. ages is an identifier with an array type. In most contexts it is converted to a pointer, but this doesn't mean it "is" one. Even if it did, in some cases the conversion does not take place (for example, as the operand of the sizeof operator). Strangely, the book does go on to talk about the difference between pointers and arrays later on the same page, warning the reader about making mistakes of the kind it just made.

C thinks your whole computer is one massive array of bytes

No, it doesn't. C makes no assumptions about the meanings of pointer representations. C implementations for segmented-memory architectures exist.

The purpose of a pointer is to let you manually index into blocks or memory when an array won't do it right

Let's just ignore all the other applications of pointers, like the char * strings the book has been using throughout.

Exercise 16

I use malloc for "memory allocate" to ask the OS to give me a piece of raw memory.

malloc need not "ask the OS" for anything, and frequently doesn't in real-world scenarios.

I use assert to make sure that I have a valid piece of memory back from malloc.

Which is pretty stupid, given this is supposed to be an exceptional condition check. If NDEBUG is defined (as is likely for production builds—that's sort of the point of it), assert is a no-op.

strdup is not part of any C standard. I find myself more and more confused about what language we're supposed to be learning.

Exercise 17

I use the atoi function

This is a bad idea. It's difficult to think of something good to say about atoi; it should probably never be used, certainly shouldn't be used for unvalidated input, and really really should not be presented to new programmers as a viable tool they should regularly use.

From now on when I say "NULL is 0" I mean its value for anyone who is overly pedantic.

IT'S A FUCKING TECHNICAL BOOK! Given the "dangerous" nature of C (a point which the book does not fail to labour), precision is of utmost importance, and dismissing concerns about precision of utmost recklessness. Also, anyone overly pedantic would note that NULL doesn't have a well-defined value (it could be (void *)0 or 0), so this doesn't really clarify anything.

C is different because it's using the real CPU's actual machinery to do its work, and that involves a chunk of ram called the stack and another called the heap.

This is not true. It could use the real CPU's actual machinery, but being abstractly specified, it could also do anything your compiler thinks is a better idea.

On some modern systems, "the heap" no longer exists, highlighting the perils of trying to talk about C by talking about an implementation of C instead.

The easiest way to keep this straight is with this mantra: If you didn't get it from malloc or a function that got it from malloc, then it's on the stack.

Not only is this obviously wrong—what about static variables?—it's pretty useless, unless you remember exactly which functions call malloc in which circumstances.

Exercise 19

In modern C, the cpp system is so integral to C's function that you might as well just consider it to be part of the language.

In fact, it is part of the language, and has been specified as such in every version of the C standard.

Exerise 20

Defining __dbg_h__ (or using it at all) is undefined behaviour, as it's a reserved identifier in C.

, ##__VA_ARGS__ is a GNU extension and should if nothing else be labeled as such.

The description of how macros are expanded does not appear to cover how macros are expanded at all.

Exercise 21

Forces the compiler to keep this variable in a register, and the compiler can just ignore you

Which is it!?

Exercise 22

In C, const does not create constants.