Best Reference Site For Each Programming Language?

Howling writes "I've been a PHP programmer for a few years and after taking a trip through many sites Ive learned that www.php.net is probably the most complete source when looking for information/documentation. I have been trying to find similar sites for every other language (Java, perl or ASP, for instance) without equal success, though. I ask: what is the best documentation/reference site for your preferred programming language?"

Comments

Scheme

[klutometis]

If it's scheme you're looking for, there's R5RS and the SRFIs; also, don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP.

Re:Scheme

[fracai]

SICP looks interesting, but is it not available in some format more portable than html? No PDF?

Re:Scheme

[fracai]

Of course I should have JFGI.

http://www.google.com/search?q=sicp+pdf

Re:Scheme

[c0nman]

Quick Ref
QuickRef currently includes: C, C++, CSS, HTML, HTML DOM, Java, JavaScript, MySQL, Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby

Re:Scheme

[klutometis]

Here's a pdf conversion of SICP from the html; for über-portability, of course, just buy the book.

Re:Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

.... don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP.

Hi SICP looks really interesting is there a PDF/offline edition. Living in Australia I will have to see if there is a local supplier of the dead-tree edition. Thanks.

Re:Scheme

[bgibby9]

Nice resource...I'm adding this one to my list!

Re:Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

gotapi currently includes many many more and has a nice ajaxy interface.

Re:Scheme

[LaskoVortex]

don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP

Incredibly good book? Yes. Reference? No friggin' way. Buy SCIP if you want to understand computer science, get something like The Scheme Programming Language, 3rd Edition by Dybvig if you want to learn scheme and have a reference.

But since scheme is so simple, you should just move to SCIP anyway and muscle through it with whatever limited scheme knowledge you already have (even none). The difficulty in absorbing the concepts in SCIP make the scheme language trivial by comparison and your cleverness will increase exponentially with every exercise you work.

Re:Scheme

[halfnerd]

Would you actually rather read the pdf, which can't be reflowed, instead of html, which can be reflowed, if both would be available as a single file download?

At least on mobile devices such as the Nokia N810 I prefer reflowable formats. Actually I prefer them on the desktop also.

Re:Scheme

[pato101]

Me too!
Seriously, I've taken a look on the C++ part and deserves bookmarking: for each algorithm, there is an example and a detailed description including the computational cost.
Really nice resource.

Re:Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick Ref

QuickRef currently includes: C, C++, CSS, HTML, HTML DOM, Java, JavaScript, MySQL, Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby

Bah, I tried it, it sucked. Perl debugging, nothing. C++ templates, nothing. Even the much maligned keyword Dim from VB returned nothing. Seems like a poor substitue for google if you ask me.

Re:Scheme

[somegeekynick]

Thank you very much. That's a wonderful resource.

Re:Scheme

[electrictroy]

Okay.

Is there a good reference site for VHDL or FPGA programming in general?

thanks :-)

Re:Scheme

[DragonWriter]

also, don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP [mit.edu].

I don't think SICP is a good reference, and for many people I suspect HtDP (also using Scheme, and also from MIT Press) is probably a better programming book.

Re:Scheme

[DragonWriter]

If it's scheme you're looking for, there's R5RS and the SRFIs

Or R6RS, depending on which side of that schism you fall on.

Re:Scheme

[MisterBlueSky]

Very nice. Thanks!

Re:Scheme

[klutometis]

. . . for many people I suspect HtDP is probably a better programming book.

In what sense is HtDP better? The authors mention that it "works extremely well as a preparation for a course on object-oriented programming [1];" which betrays a certain reverence for the status quo (i.e. university as Java mill).

The great thing about SICP is its irreverence for the "real world" (metacircular evaluator?!), which is why it remains relevant twenty years after its publication; HtDP, on the other hand, will be forgotten after the present publication cycle.

[1] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/jfp2004-fffk.pdf

Re:Scheme

[klutometis]

Or R6RS, depending on which side of that schism you fall on.

As in, with the dark side or the Jedi? Which is which makes a good exercise for the reader.

Re:Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Heathen! The Formatting Gods know better than you, and must be heeded! How DARE you change the divine alignment They hath wrought!

Yeah. Reflow and display adaptation were two founding features of the Web, and sadly are two of the most often discarded on the modern Web.

Re:Scheme

[DragonWriter]

In what sense is HtDP better?

I'll let you answer that question, below...

The authors mention that it "works extremely well as a preparation for a course on object-oriented programming [1];" which betrays a certain reverence for the status quo (i.e. university as Java mill).

While, of course, concrete evaluations necessarily rely on the environments in which things can be concretely evaluated -- and that means, in this case, real world universities -- I don't see that at all. Object-oriented programming and design is not limited to Java, and is certainly something that has demonstrated utility even if it isn't the be-all and end-all of programming. As one of the criticism of using Scheme as a first language is that it doesn't prepare students well for dealing with OO, the fact that HtDP demonstrably doesn't fall down in that respect is a good thing.

The great thing about SICP is its irreverence for the "real world" (metacircular evaluator?!),

See, that's exactly why I said that, for many people, HtDP would be a better programming work. Many people are concerned with "the real world". (Note, I personally think that, despite the differences in focus, both HtDP and SICP are great books.)

Re:Scheme

[klutometis]

Many people are concerned with "the real world".

Yes, yes; indeed. My thesis is only that such people are irrelevant. ;)

Re:Scheme

[VoyagerRadio]

also, don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP.

How so? Please be more specific.

Perl and Python

[mangu]

cpan.org and python.org

Re:Perl and Python

[SatanicPuppy]

Agreed. I'd also add Perlmonks.org; it's not documentation per se but it's damn useful.

For java, you have to master the API...Even modules that other people write are often documented with javadoc, and look just the same. Once you use it for a while it becomes familiar.

Re:Perl and Python

[Praedon]

Yep, those are good too.. but I'd also add something that was basically born from Slashdot, it's Rosetta Code For common solutions with multiple code for different programming environments.

Re:Perl and Python

[mangu]

The funny thing is that for some 20 years, before I started using Python, my favorite and almost only language was C, and I don't know of any really good site for C.

However, I do know of a really good author, that is a "dead tree" author, for C: Herbert Schildt. I would recommend these. Any of them. Well, just kidding, I haven't read them all, I doubt anyone has, but I bet they are all good.

My favorite is his book on artificial intelligence. It's out of print now, but it was one of the reasons why C was my favorite language for about 20 years, and it still would be if Python hadn't come out.

Re:Perl and Python

[mr_mischief]

perldoc.perl.org

use Perl; comes high on the list, along with PerlMonks and PerlBuzz.

Perl.org in general gets points for being where you can find Use, perldoc, and more.

Re:Perl and Python

[rossjp]

Being that cpan is part of perl.org, I'd say start at perl.org

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

C was my favorite language for about 20 years, and it still would be if Python hadn't come out.

You know this of course, but I thought I'd mention that your C experience isn't wasted as a Python programmer. The cycle: design in Python => profile => redo bottlenecks in C, is the basis of industrial strength Python application.

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

http://perldoc.perl.org/ is slick and easy to navigate.
From the 'reference' section you can find answers to 90% of your questions in a few mouse clicks.
I wish python had such a well organized website..

Re:Perl and Python

[Bogtha]

However, I do know of a really good author, that is a "dead tree" author, for C: Herbert Schildt.

I used to recommend his books too, but he has a bad reputation among many developers:

Why do many experts not think very highly of Herbert Schildt's books?

A good answer to this question could fill a book by itself. While no book is perfect, Schildt's books, in the opinion of many gurus, seem to positively aim to mislead learners and encourage bad habits. Schildt's beautifully clear writing style only makes things worse by causing many "satisfied" learners to recommend his books to other learners.

Do take a look at the following scathing articles before deciding to buy a Schildt text.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
http://herd.plethora.net/~seebs/c/c_tcr.html

The above reviews are admittedly based on two of Schildt's older books. However, the language they describe has not changed in the intervening period, and several books written at around the same time remain highly regarded.

The following humorous post also illustrates the general feeling towards Schildt and his books.

http://www.qnx.com/~glen/deadbeef/2764.html

There is exactly one and ONLY one C book bearing Schildt's name on its cover that is at all recommended by many C experts - see Q 25.

Re:Perl and Python

[kat_skan]

Another good one would be the Python Cookbook on ASPN. And at a more abstract level, Ward's Wiki has explanations and discussions of a wide range of interesting tools, languages, and techniques.

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Assumptions in programming are killers, assumptions in python are worse.

I assumed the python website would be python.com (note: NSFW), so that's where I went, infront of my partner (who was oblivious to what I was doing until the page come up). That is a mistake you don't make twice.

Re:Perl and Python

[MoxFulder]

The funny thing is that for some 20 years, before I started using Python, my favorite and almost only language was C, and I don't know of any really good site for C.

I agree. C and Python are, in my opinion, the only languages that integrate *really well* with general UNIX design philosophy. They're both incredibly simple and powerful, in their own ways.

Before Python, I was a Perl guy... but I left Perl a year ago and haven't looked back.

Now I'm getting good at writing Python extension modules in C (what fun). The API is really nice and almost trivial to use from a C programmer's perspective. It's not unlike the GTK APIs, but focuses a litttle less on consistency and a little more on practical usability.

However, I do know of a really good author, that is a "dead tree" author, for C: Herbert Schildt. I would recommend these. Any of them. Well, just kidding, I haven't read them all, I doubt anyone has, but I bet they are all good.

I like his books too, and you have a good point. There are plenty of references for C functions (standard library, man pages, system calls) and plenty of excellent open source example code, but there aren't really any good online resources that teach or demonstrate the idioms of C programming in a step-by-step fashion. I guess that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the roll-your-own attitude that some C programmers have. :-/

Someone prove me wrong, please?

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old enough to remember that Mr Schildt was castigated for producing C books with stuff like "void main(void) {}" in the code samples.

Re:Perl and Python

[cyphercell]

http://www.crasseux.com/books/ctutorial/
I haven't read it, but it's worth a shot.

Re:Perl and Python

[mangu]

Mr Schildt was castigated for producing C books with stuff like "void main(void) {}

Well, yes, I have been castigated by that, too...

BUT, on the other hand, Mr. Schildt introduced me to several other immensely powerful practices, like, for instance, "incremental testing".

In the end, adding everything up, I must say that Herbert Schildt's contribution to my formation as a programmer has been undecidedly positive.

Re:Perl and Python

[LaskoVortex]

TPIP (Text Processing in Python) by David Mertz. It is a reference as well as one of the coolest programming books ever if you are a pythonista. I'd review the whole thing right here, but one should just read it instead.

Beyond that, I'd say that Programming Python by Lutz is one of the best programming books for Getting Things Done (TM). Its a book that takes some fortitude to read, but it is worth any python programmer's time.

The official docs on python.org are good for the standard library. I've never read Van Rossum's tutorial because I had already learned the language before I discovered his tutorial, but his other documentation and articles on python.org is excellent.

I still find my Python Essential Reference, 2nd edition indispensable, even though it's for python 2.1 and we are now at 2.5. I'm sure the latest edition is even better.

Re:Perl and Python

[alex4u2nv]

no need for a website, just use your manpages!!

ex:
man getline

Re:Perl and Python

[Schlage]

...undecidedly positive.

I don't think this means what you think it means.

Re:Perl and Python

[TheThiefMaster]

I think he got "decidedly" and "undeniably" mixed up.

Re:Perl and Python

[wondershit]

For Perl I always have a copy of Beginning Perl on my hard drive. But it's also always the first hit on Google for beginning perl if you have to change the computer. I know, it's a PDF and it therefore has no cool AJAX Web 2.0ish effects but the function reference is great and whenever I forget how to create an anonymous hash reference and whatnot (which easily happens to me when not programming Perl for a while): it's there.

For PHP I always use php.net. I never searched for something PHP related I couldn't find there.

Re:Perl and Python

[ApproachingLinux]

in the event you cant find the last link (since qnx.com has evidently redone their web site since the original post), archive.org to the rescue:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001015070054/http://www.qnx.com/~glen/deadbeef/2764.html

Re:Perl and Python

[beoba]

The herd.plethora.net link has moved here:

http://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcr.html

Re:Perl and Python

[cyphercell]

decidedly, undeniably, castigated.

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Still refer to his "C The complete reference" from 1987 a wonderfuly done reference book, best $25 I've ever spent ;)

Re:Perl and Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Python and C++ also play pretty darn nicely together. See Boost::Python library.

Also, check out SWIG.

Official website?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've come to realize that every modern language's website has a lot of useful resources for learning.
I mean, why wouldn't they? They want to get the language accross.

Java.sun.com

[acon1modm]

just google: java X class where X is whatever you want. Top results will be sun java docs which are complete and have links to parent and descendent classes, implemented interfaces, etc.

Re:Java.sun.com

[Vectronic]

http://java.sun.com/reference/

Samples, API, Docs, Tutorials, etc.
(redudndant, but people usually like links)

Re:Java.sun.com

[B4D BE4T]

I agree. I have been using Java for a while now and have always found the information I needed at java.sun.com. Just about anything you could want to know about Java can be found in the reference section. The API section has all of the classes listed alphabetically for the more recent versions of Java with a fairly detailed description of each class and its methods.

Re:Java.sun.com

[MBCook]

You don't even have to go that far most of the time. If you want to know about the String class, you will need to google "Java String" or "java.lang.String".

But for classes with less common names, just the classname will often do. If it's not the top result, it will be close. This works for HttpServletRequest, NumberFormat, and many others. It's so great while programming to be able to just alt-tab over to a browser, type in a class name, and get the official JavaDoc on it easily. Adding a method name you want to know about (i.e. "HttpServletRequest getSession") often works even better. You still get the JavaDoc for it, but you can see little bits in the summary, as well as getting more discussions on using that method from other sites.

Heck, often you'll get a top result (Java 1.5 or 1.4.2), another result or two from Sun (some other version of Java, maybe 1.3), then some copies of the JavaDocs on other sites, and discussions of the class or people asking for help with it.

I know many people don't like parts of Java or some of it's design philosophies, but they really did a very good job with the idea of JavaDoc.

Re:Java.sun.com

[Deanalator]

Hell, even the class name itself is usually enough, even for common words like class, object, system, string, etc, the java documentation is the top hit.

Sometimes I search for "java 6 " to make sure I get the recent docs.

Re:Java.sun.com

[postmortem]

"google it" isn't most savvy solution. A developer should be able to use documentation provided with development kit or IDE. And he/she should do that first before relying on information provided by unknown peer found on some site online.

It would be much more productive to install java docs on local machine, and then if your Java IDE will be able to provide the documentation information on spot. You don't have to leave IDE. Microsoft has been doing this for years ... just highlight your keyword and press F1.

Re:Java.sun.com

[megabunny]

Candian Mind Products http://mindprod.com/ for Java. Good info, and some of the dirt too.

Re:Java.sun.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Just download the SDK javadocs.

I always said that documentation was one of the key things java got right.

Man pages that keeps referring to one another with no way to jump to them, or how another OS might handle the call, posix specs that never tell you what implementation actually do (not their job), MSDN giving you samples or examples and telling you on another page why you should never do this, the C++ joke, begone.

Now most 3rd party library's doc is cr*p. But the java doc itself is second to none (more like leaps and bounds above everything else, much to the chagrin of the "bloated" whiners), and you can can do a truckload with it alone.

Re:Java.sun.com

[Reverend528]

There is also the Java Forums which is a great place to ask people to do your intro CS homework and get flamed.

Re:Java.sun.com

[FlyingBishop]

I've always found typing java classname into the url bar in Firefox brings you directly to the requisite page. (Which is basically what you said, as it uses a Google "I'm feeling lucky" search, but it's more elegant to type it in and get an answer instantly.

Of course, it's not quite as elegant as pydoc and perldoc.

Re:Java.sun.com

[dnoyeb]

I download the docs and install them in the jDK directory. That way they are available in my IDE when I highlight methods and classes. Java has whats called "javadoc" which allows comments to directly be attached to variables and methods and classes, etc. in the source code.

Also, the sourcecode is included with the jdk.

Java's organization makes documentation easy. Or perhaps Sun is just organized like that.

Re:Java.sun.com

[cybereal]

just google:

java X class

where X is whatever you want. Top results will be sun java docs which are complete and have links to parent and descendent classes, implemented interfaces, etc.

The problem here is that google sends you to outdated documentation, sometimes as far as 7 years old javadocs from old versions. It's better to just go to java.sun.com and get a link to the live docs and stick it in your bookmarks, especially since there is more info there that's not just javadocs.

Also ##java on freenode IRC is an excellent resource if you don't come in acting like an entitled moron...

Oh and as a bonus for Java-ites, if you're on a Mac, grab Xcode (free) and its documentation browser will download and maintain an updated copy of the javadoc with decent searching functions. Furthermore any decent IDE (Eclipse IDEA NetBeans) should have their own way of quickly linking you to javadoc.

Re:Java.sun.com

[Tom9729]

Or you could just add the version of Java to your search query.

Re:Java.sun.com

[pimpimpim]

While that may work for java, I find google has generally become self-referencing when it comes to code problems: Often the first few results are forums with the same question you had, but only "helpful" answers like "did you use google?", completely useless. Clean up your ranking algorithm, google! And people on forums should be at least a bit more helpful. The person in question most likely did use google, and giving a hint of where to go look for doesn't hurt ;)

Re:Java.sun.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure you get the most recent API version (6 at the moment). Nothing will break horribly if you use older methods (although you may get warnings/errors about deprecation) but the API evolves over time, often adding simpler and better ways to perform common tasks which aren't present in older versions.

I usually use 'java 6 [whatever]' for this reason.

Re:Java.sun.com

[hansamurai]

I'd also recommend Javaranch for people beginning Java, I discovered it when I was going for certification and it helped immensely.

Re:Java.sun.com

[hansamurai]

The problem here is that google sends you to outdated documentation, sometimes as far as 7 years old javadocs from old versions.

That's why when I'm googling for Sun api, I'll usually search "java 6 string" and it will bring me to the Java 6 api for the String class.

Re:Java.sun.com

[sootman]

Wow. That's almost as cool as being able to go DIRECTLY to php.net/whateveryouwant to see the docs AND contributed examples. PLUS it's got some pretty good AI to say "we don't have foo, did you mean..."

Say what you will about PHP itself, it's a pretty sweet setup.

Re:Java.sun.com

[morrisb]

Sun is the best for looking up java api's. For keeping up with the latest java news, I like www.popularJAVA.com

Re:Java.sun.com

[warsql]

You can find the mastermind of that site (Roedy Green) and other helpful gurus at the newsgroups comp.lang.java.help and comp.lang.java.programmer

Re:Java.sun.com

[GravityStar]

For getting java docs on 3rd party libraries your best bet is letting Maven manage your dependencies and generate your Eclipse project files. Maven can then also download the sources and javadoc of those libraries and make them accessible from Eclipse.

Re:Java.sun.com

[VoyagerRadio]

Didn't bring up Sun Java docs for "java javascript class", but whatever. I went to sun.com and ran the same search.

ASP

[Anonymous Coward]

for asp: asp.net. has very good tutorials. for reference use msdn library.

Re:ASP

[Brian Gordon]

the msdn library covers pretty much all microsoft languages

Re:ASP

[Anonymous Coward]

the MSDN library is TERRIBLE

Re:ASP

[Anonymous Coward]

only if you are new to it. I remember hating it. It is only good for techs developed by MS which ASP[X] conveniently falls under.

Re:ASP

[El Cubano]

For ASP, I personally prefer http://www.apache-asp.org/

Re:ASP

[weicco]

I second that and must emphasize the usefulness of MSDN. Everything I've ever needed in my 10 year programming career I've found in MSDN. You just need to have a little patience when using it's search and crawling it's innards. Sometimes the information is hard to find.

Second. I would recommend Google. You can find a huge amount information just googling around a bit. I've found that references are sometimes a bit off and one must stumble through various message boards to find a way around quirks and stuff. Especially if you are writing C++ app for Symbian.

Re:ASP

[Ash-Fox]

I noticed no one mentioned any references for ASP. Are there any good ones out there?

Yes.

Here's what I do

[shellster_dude]

php: php.net
coldfusion: adobe.com
html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com
python: python.org
c/c++: devshed.com
java: java.sun.com

Anything else: my brilliant co-worker.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick glance at devshed.com shows no C/C++ at all.

Re:Here's what I do

[MightyYar]

A quick glance at devshed.com shows no C/C++ at all.

Hmmm...

Re:Here's what I do

[MrMunkey]

For JavaScript I head over to

developer.mozilla.org

It's pretty clear, but unfortunately you still have to watch out for browser incompatibilities. They sometimes will have a note about it though.

Re:Here's what I do

[rtconner]

I never liked w3schools or python.org. Unfortunately they are the best, wich sucks.

Re:Here's what I do

[zxaos]

Also, if you're looking for a question and answer style reference, you can ask specific questions at http://stackoverflow.com/

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

From OP: " the best documentation/reference site"

A forum is not a reference.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

eloquentjavascript.net is a great reintroduction to javascript

Re:Here's what I do

[MightyYar]

A forum is not a reference.

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion :)

I tend to agree with you, but I find the best reference sites also have a forum or comment section. PHP.net is a great example of this.

Re:Here's what I do

[Korbeau]

Actually for HTML/css/etc. (not javascript) and their intricacies, I've always went to MSDN (always found through Google) which had a very nice and comprehensive list of all dhtml elements and (believe it or not) told you which were compatibles with W3C or where complete IE fabulations.

w3schools is bullshit. Maybe good for teaching someone learning, but definitely not a reference guide.

I'm not sure it's still the case these days.

On a side note, what is up with W3C? They should BE the reference in web standards, but their documents are just so long, abstract and boring that you would have to read all day long to fit together all information you need. They should really release some good reference material.

Re:Here's what I do

[Firehed]

Well usually the code samples that people have in the php.net/functionname pages are terrible and best avoided, but if nothing else they provide decent inspiration. Even if that inspiration is sometimes for how not to do things. While I do 90% of my work in PHP, it being so loosely typed comes with a SERIOUS lack of best practice guidelines.

Having said all of that, PHP's reference material accessibility has probably been one of the biggest factors in my decision to do most of my work in it (LAMP servers being so ubiquitous is another). I always found the .net documentation really painful to work with when I was doing a little work in that department, and it did nothing to lower my dislike for Microsoft. Oh well.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't be so fast with suggesting that php.net's user comments are "a great example". Many many many of the comments posted there are posted by people who have absolutely no clue wtf they're doing, and have no business trying to pass on their "knowledge" to others.

Far too many of the comments are absolutely WRONG. Not just inaccurate or slightly off-base, but completely ****ed. It'd be like looking up the function color_of_sky(), and reading a user comment that states "returns how many minutes per day the elephant dances on a teacup". If you've never used the function before and the official description is a little lacking, you might walk away actually thinking the function has something to do with dancing elephants.

Of course, the truly dangerous comments are the ones that look like they're coming from someone who knows what they're talking about, when in fact they're just spewing BS they think is correct. For example, a user posting that color_of_sky() returns "blue" between 8am-8pm GMT, otherwise "black". When in fact it returns "blue" between 8am-8pm *local time*, "red" between 8:01-9:30pm, otherwise "black".

I love php.net's comments sometimes (because I can sort through the junk), but if the majority of people reading them are of the same calibre of programmer as those posting them, then they're probably doing more harm than good.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, I hate w3schools.com... I usually use the W3C's specs.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Scripting isn't even programming in my opinion.

You have a really stupid opinion.

When you can make a variable on the fly and never specify it's type or size, it's not a real language.

FYI, in English -- which is a real language -- "it's" means "it is".

And since you reference VB... When in VB do you have to specify the size of a variable?!

Re:Here's what I do

[Rary]

Exactly. Go straight to the source of your language of choice.

Re:Here's what I do

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Coldfusion: insertforkineyeofpersonaskingcoldfusionquestion.com

Re:Here's what I do

[shellster_dude]

I forgot to mentionhttp://www.regular-expressions.info/

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

For Javascript I would head over to http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not use w3scools for anything other than a good laugh over how web development was done in the early 90's.

The best reference for html and css are still found on w3c.org.
HTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
CSS: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

For browser inconsistencies: google.com

For javascript reference use mozillas:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference

Re:Here's what I do

[apathy maybe]

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

Re:Here's what I do

[Mopatop]

Seconded, PHP.net/manual is the best programming language manual I've ever seen. At Christmas all I ask Santa for is a Python manual that's as good as PHP's.

Re:Here's what I do

[MightyYar]

You are absolutely right - it is "coder beware" at PHP.net. However, usually the bad comments are followed by corrections from others. Though it takes time, it is best to read all of the comments for a given function to get the whole story.

I find that the disinformation is usually worth putting up with to find out about limitations and such PRIOR to using a function :)

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction on the "coldfusion: adobe.com" recommendation. Adobe.com is more marketing. You'll need the livedocs at http://www.adobe.com/support/documentation/en/coldfusion/

Re:Here's what I do

[theCoder]

I thought I'd post this because I hadn't seen anyone else mention this site. The best HTML / CSS reference I've found is at blooberry.com.

HTML: http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/index.html
CSS: http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm

For C, C++, perl, and make, the man (and info) pages are usually the quickest and easiest for me. The C man pages are pretty standard. The C++ pages I get from the Sun compiler. They're decent, but not great. They at least say what's available on each class. The perl pages are the same as what's online, but are often a little easier to get to through man (at least for me, especially if I don't have access to the Internet). The 'make' info page pretty much has everything I could want to know about that insanely convoluted (but interesting) language.

Re:Here's what I do

[Tnek]

Gee!!! Thanks Becky!!! I didn't know you went by the pseudonym "shellster dude". It's nice to know you appreciate my help with FORTRAN, COBOL, etc...

Re:Here's what I do

[fredrik70]

also nice: http://www.quirksmode.org/

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Have to disagree with this one. w3schools is often incomplete and poorly explained. webmonkey.com is a far more complete resource including everything from step by step tutorials to cheat sheets when you cant remember the myriad of css properties.

Re:Here's what I do

[richtaur]

w3schools is awful. It's out of date, contains loads of misinformation, doesn't keep up with current browsers and barely scratches the surface. Yet it remains one of the most popular webdev destinations because people often don't know where else to go. Please stop recommending it :(

developer.mozilla.org will do in most cases.

Re:Here's what I do

[McBeer]

While I do like the cleaner design and higher degree of reliability offered at w3.org, w3schools does offer a really fast way to look up simple syntax issues. w3.org has a pretty big ratio of text to information I need at times. I think they both serve a purpose.

Re:Here's what I do

[VoyagerRadio]

W3.org is too difficult for most beginners to understand.

Re:Here's what I do

[easyTree]

On a side note, what is up with W3C? They should BE the reference in web standards, but their documents are just so long, abstract and boring that you would have to read all day long to fit together all information you need. They should really release some good reference material.

I completely agree although I hadn't really thought about it until you mentioned it.

Re:Here's what I do

[Anonymous Coward]

I masturbated into your beer.

Java 6 API Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

The Java 6 API reference.

Hey Samzenpus!

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] Ive learned that www.php.net is probably the most complete source [...]

Just a typo. Although you'd better correct it before the grammar/spelling Nazis get to your house with pitch forks and torches.

Tcl -- use the Wikibook

[Xcott Craver]

One of the best tutorials and references for Tcl is the Wikibook on Tcl programming.

Indeed, it's one of the best programming texts I've seen in any language.

Re:Tcl -- use the Wikibook

[DrugCheese]

I've alwaysd found http://tcl.tk/ manuals all I needed but that Wikibook looks like a great place to start.

Re:Tcl -- use the Wikibook

[Anonymous Coward]

Also very good for extra info about all things Tcl is the Tcl'ers wiki.

http://wiki.tcl.tk

Re:Tcl -- use the Wikibook

[Anonymous Coward]

Use http://wiki.tcl.tk , Luke!

Re:Tcl -- use the Wikibook

[Anonymous Coward]

or the Tcl'ers WIki ( http://wiki.tcl.tk )
or comp.lang.tcl

c/posix: man pages

[Anonymous Coward]

c/posix: man pages

Re:c/posix: man pages

[sinserve]

the best reference for C/Posix is a well maintains etags/ctags cross-reference of /usr/src/ and /usr/include :-)

Object Pascal and C

[jmpeax]

Object Pascal reference & C reference.

Re:Object Pascal and C

[Anonymous Coward]

For Delphi (since we're on the subject of Pascal/Object Pascal):

TORRY'S DELPHI PAGES:

http://www.torry.net/

&

DELPH SUPER PAGE:

http://delphi.icm.edu.pl/

Those are my favs, & have a great deal of prebuilt 3rd party FREE .VCL that work, generally excellently (some even with sourcecode), & a fantastic degree of code examples + advisement/help pages too!

APK

C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft.com and might I add, one of the best languages ever!

Re:C#

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't dislike C#; it's basically just Java, so if you like one, you'll probably like the other.

The documentation on the other hand...Just go buy a book, because the online docs are slow sadistic torture.

I used to think Java was a bit mean for just throwing out the big API and letting you fend for yourself, but C# throws out part of an API and examples that only cover part of what you need to know. It is extremely frustrating, and the fact that they clearly think it's better than Java's spartan lists of packages, classes, and their properties...That just makes it worse.

Re:C#

[oldhack]

C# info is horrendous, and the reason is because it is hooked up so tightly to Windows. One day, maybe, we can write quality app with C#/.NET, but until then, you'd need to hook up with all the legacy Windows API - Win32, COM, etc.

Java started out as a clean platform. C#/.NET never was. .Net interop is whole lot easier to deal with than Java JNI, but that's because it NEEDS to be.

Re:C#

[ya really]

have you tried mono?

Re:C#

[rgo]

yes it is a great language, but i cannot say the same thing about the .net.

Re:C#

[Anonymous Coward]

have you tried mono?

I thought I had once, but it turns out I'm just really lazy.

Re:C#

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually pretty true. For any Microsoft API field, I use google:

"ClassWhatever site:msdn2.microsoft.com"

It's funny to me that I use google, but it's good at finding the correct result. The site is generally fast, and easy to navigate within the tree view.

Though nothing beats the documentation given by using the .NET Reflector and peaking into the .NET Framework's code (the part that isn't native anyway).

Re:C#

[aclarke]

Ironically, while attending a 2 week .NET class, I thought I was just having a really hard time staying awake and that the subject matter was giving me headaches. Turns out I had mono...

Re:C#

[Da Fokka]

I have to agree. I love C# (ducks) but the documentation is just terrible. Horrid. Abominable. Basic things like (what will happen if you try to retrieve an object from a dictionary) are not documented. The order in which events are called are not documented. The code samples are abysmal:

System.NameSpace.ReallyComplexClass
Example (C#):
ReallyComplexClass rcl = new ReallyComplexClass();

Example (VB.Net):
Dim rcl as new ReallyComplexClass()

(...and so on for JScript and C++).

Re:C#

[AppleOSuX]

"I don't dislike C#; it's basically just Java"

If by "basically just Java" you mean that it has curly brackets, then yes. Otherwise, take a look at this short list of features that differentiate C# from Java and basically make C# better.

C# has support for output and reference parameters.
C# has more primitive types than Java.
C# allows user-defined value types.
C# has partial classes (extremely useful).
C# allows the use of pointers.
C# allows generics for reference and value types.
C# has the yield keyword (iterator generators).

Oh and besides being a better language with a better IDE, it compiles to a runtime that supports multiple programming languages.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java

Re:C#

[McBeer]

One day, maybe, we can write quality app with C#/.NET, but until then, you'd need to hook up with all the legacy Windows API - Win32, COM, etc.

Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. I use C# all the time and rarely make win32/COM calls from it.

Re:C#

[oldhack]

Then you're doing it wrong. :-) Or you do ASP.NET stuff.

google

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it but I have yet to find one site that gives me everything im looking for. If the site does have loads of information it tends to be a pain to navigate. So for C++, C#, VB, VB.net, Bash, Batch, Java, Javascript, etc. google or comparable search engine really is the best source

Suggestions for perl

[howlinmonkey]

Documentation: peldoc.perl.org
Community: perlmonks.org
Articles: www.perl.com (O'Reilly site)

I have found the perl community to be the most open, supportive and cohesive group of all the languages I work with. Right now I am working with PHP, perl and C#, and perl is by far the easiest language to get help and correct information. I can find tons of info on the other languages, but the information isn't always the best quality.

Good luck with your search.

Re:Suggestions for perl

[Lisandro]

Seconded. You can say whatever you want about Perl, but the online documentation at perl.org is second to none. Manuals, tutorials and references are very well written and organized.

Perl/Python/Ruby and now Each

[Lije Baley]

So is Each the next great scripting language? I've never tried it...

Re:Perl/Python/Ruby and now Each

[ak_hepcat]

Probably an extended version of E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(programming_language)

Re:Perl/Python/Ruby and now Each

[VGPowerlord]

Maybe they meant Eich, the next version of Javascript*!

*Actually, Eich is the last name of the guy who wrote Javascript, but eh.

Any Language

[Anonymous Coward]

Google.com

Seriously.

You'll dig up so many gosh darn half completed scripts on any type of program for any language that you'll go crazy.

Java!

[ScytheBlade1]

So this isn't my favorite language. Heck, I barely even know the language. But!

http://www.google.com/search?q=java+6+api&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/

Can I has karma now?

Best information is the source

[Anonymous Coward]

For my forte, ActionScript, the best reference by far is flash itself.

To Wit:

The best reference I have ever found is any well made editing program with an excellent help file, preferably one with a syntax hotkey.

For all languages

[Korbeau]

experts-exchange.com

*ducks*

Re:For all languages

[nog_lorp]

answers.yahoo.com

*geese*

Re:For all languages

[mr_mischief]

ask.slashdot.org

*swans*

Re:For all languages

[Bluecobra]

ask.slashdot.org

*goose*

Re:For all languages

[gringer]

stackoverflow.com

*tigers*

Re:For all languages

[Creepy Crawler]

politics.slashdot.org

*goatse*

Re:For all languages

[Ricochet]

ask.slashdot.org

*goose*

I would have thought *asses* would have been a better choice (oops I meant trolls ;-).

Well there goes my karma.

Re:For all languages

[thatskinnyguy]

ExpertSexchange.com... lol *ducks*

Re:For all languages

[starrsoft]

barackobama.com

*swoons*

Re:For all languages

[jcwren]

99-bottles-of-beer.net

*turkeys*

Re:For all languages

[GFree678]

Hey! Experts exchange isn't so bad once you realize you don't even have to pay to get answers.

Eg. http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/CPP/Q_22118650.html

Skip through the crap in the middle to make you think there's no actual solutions, and the solutions appear at the very bottom. Good work.

Re:For all languages

[William-Ely]

I use http://lolcode.com/examples for all my LOLCODE programs.

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

How is referce sight formed??

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

digg.com

*moosen*

Re:For all languages

[ObiWonKanblomi]

about.com

*cranes*

Re:For all languages

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

digg.com

*turkeys*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

experts-exchange.com

or expert-sexchange.com

Re:For all languages

[Undead NDR]

Skip through the crap in the middle to make you think there's no actual solutions, and the solutions appear at the very bottom.

Not here... anyway, experts-exchange.com should be taken off the Internet by popular demand. Or, at the very least, filtered into oblivion by Google.

Re:For all languages

[Baricom]

Nope, that's only true when you're linking in from Google. They do cloaking.

I just clicked on your link and am certain I did not see any answers.

Re:For all languages

[GFree678]

Ah damn, sorry you're right. Oh well. Why do they do that anyway, have the answers when linked from google?

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

stackoverflow.com

*pinkflamingos*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

experts-exchange.com

or

expertsexchange.com

??

Re:For all languages

[bakes]

www.youporn.com

*swallows*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

google.com

"flamingos"

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

{foul}

*{fowl}*

Re:For all languages

[Cyrcyr]

I'm suprised noone has mentioned this, but it really has helped me out ALOT!

www.google.com

*struts*

Re:For all languages

[aclarke]

Probably so Google can spider the answers, not just the questions. This makes their pages more relevant in a search and more likely to come up as a result for your query.

Re:For all languages

[goose-incarnated]

Yes?

Re:For all languages

[Junior J. Junior III]

goatse.cx

*ewe*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

lol....gotta love the degradation replies of this comment

Re:For all languages

[Apathy451]

Semi-related: A quick tip it seems many don't know.. if you think you will actually find an answer on experts-exchange.com from, say, a Google search, click the link and scroll to the bottom, and by bottom I mean the part below what looks like the page footer and isn't. The actual, fulltext replies are all at the bottom of the page.

Quick example: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Scripting/Perl/Q_23602251.html
Scroll down to the "Solution" section.

7-day trial my ass.

Re:For all languages

[Hyppy]

NoScript, for the win.

Re:For all languages

[wizzerking]

Pay for Site, Without Money you get no answer. I have long given up on using this site

Re:For all languages

[nog_lorp]

notarickroll.com

*brit*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

African or European?

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

developer.microsoft.com

*larks*

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

ask.slashdot.org

*parrots*

Re:For all languages

[zobier]

What do you mean, African or European?

Re:For all languages

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing better than http://thedailywtf.com/

Re:For all languages

[badkarmadayaccount]

ubuntu.com/forum

*ducks lower*

My Fave

[DynaSoar]

is found among the usenet FAQa: http://www.visi.com/~nathan/a2/faq/asoft.html

Sure, it's funny to the Ivory Soap Parameter (99 and 44/100ths of a percent) of people, but I still keep a copy for my use. What *I* find funny is that the first Macs had an Applesoft emulator available, and it had a subset of the Apple II reference called "Green Book" in its instructions.

Re:My Fave

[Alpha830RulZ]

404, my friend.

Re:My Fave

[DynaSoar]

404, my friend.

d00d! It wasn't this afternoon when I looked it up to post that. I swear. Like I said, I keep a copy. I had to look up a link.

Re:My Fave

[Alpha830RulZ]

You have strong powers, my friend. Use them only for good. ;-)

C/C++

[Kuraitou]

http://cprogramming.com/ - best site for beginners in my opinion.

Re:C/C++

[nog_lorp]

www.cplusplus.com

Beats the hell out of man pages for the POSIX C libraries.

Re:C/C++

[Simon80]

Standard Template Library:

• SGI reference - readable, comes with informative explanations of concepts
• libstdc++ reference - less readable, but it may have some non-standard things that aren't in the SGI docs, useful if you're using libstd++

Boost libraries:
For anything not present in the standard library, these are the next place to check. They're freely usable in commercial projects.

Re:C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

www.cplusplus.com

Beats the hell out of man pages for the POSIX C libraries.

I'd also like to add www.cppreference.com

Its a reference, not a tutorial. But it has everything in a very simple format. Combine that with www.cplusplus.com and its hard to beat by anything else I've seen out there.

www.cprogramming.com is pretty good too.

Re:C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cppreference.com/ - easy guide to the STL

Re:C/C++

[shadow-9]

http://xoax.net/ for C++.

Re:C/C++

[Wolfbone]

Beats the hell out of man pages for the POSIX C libraries.

Indeed. One of the things which really exasperates me about the unknowledgeable pseuds who tend to dominate online programming forums is that they don't even know enough to direct learners to the best documentation. The Ubuntu forums were among the worst I've ever seen as far as C programming is concerned: "$ man this" and "$ man that" and never a mention of the GNU libc documentation.

Re:C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I love that site.

Re:C/C++

[Chirs]

I tried looking up "sendmsg" on that site and it gave me no results. Sounds like the man pages have it beat...although the ultimate reference on POSIX is the SUS spec.

Re:C/C++

[RazzleDazzle]

Monzy does not think C++ is very good.

Re:C/C++

[geantvert]

The C++ annotations is more a tutorial than a reference but I find it very useful. http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/cplusplus/ And unlike more other documents of that kind, this one is regularly updated by its author (since 1994).

Re:C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

The best online C++ reference I know:

http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/cplusplus/index.html

(I never understand why this is not more widely known, because of its great quality and completeness)

Re:C/C++

[neiko]

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ A great place to start when you're stumped.

Re:C/C++

[mindriot]

http://www.cppreference.com/ comes in very handy for looking up STL stuff quickly.

Re:C/C++

[jgrahn]

www.cplusplus.com Beats the hell out of man pages for the POSIX C libraries.

Where do you find POSIX documentation on that site? All I see is C standard library documentation, and C++ standard library documentation which feels, at a glance, as if something is missing (I cannot pinpoint exactly what).

Also, which man pages are you reading? The ones which come with Debian Linux are excellent. Definitely not easy to "beat the hell out of". (Remember: man pages are reference material. Any tutorial, overview or introduction can beat the hell out of man pages, if you try to use them as a tutorial, overview or introduction.)

Re:C/C++

[jgrahn]

http://cprogramming.com/ - best site for beginners in my opinion.

I'd stay away from it. It muddles the distinction between two very different languages. Also, this worthless "tip" got rated 3.28 out of 5 by over 800 readers:

Use ++ and --. Try to use only unary operators for incrementing and decrementing variables; they produce fewer instructions and run faster.

Re:C/C++

[nog_lorp]

I just have not-so-fond memories of looking for printf formats back when I was like 10 on a linux box with no ethernet or X. I think I recall 'man printf' directing me to some ultra-obscure '*f' function man page for the formats, which listed how the formatting parameters worked but still had no comprehensive list of formats, and further directed me to another man page.

Re:C/C++

[nog_lorp]

I should have said "ANSI C".

But either way, sendmsg isn't ANSI C or POSIX C.

Re:C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

www.dinkumware.com

Re:C/C++

[nog_lorp]

Meant ANSI C >

And I was reading... I think RedHat from like 10 years ago.

stack overflow question

[fragbait]

Perhaps this a question for Stack Overflow?

-fragbait

Re:stack overflow question

[paulhar]

Perhaps the answer *is* stackoverflow.com?

Re:stack overflow question

[VoyagerRadio]

I'll bet this entire topic sprung from the intro of Stack Overflow. In any case, Slashdot has impeccable timing, for I was just today seeking out the JavaScript Client-Side Reference for my web programming course. I'm still digging through the posts here to find opinions regarding JavaScript references...

No

[OrangeTide]

The best programming languages don't have good online reference sites. You use these things printing on a special material called paper.

The Internet is not the answer, it's the question. (or problem, depending on how cynical you are)

Re:No

[kiddygrinder]

i was going to mod you down for sucking, but i'll just say it in person: you suck. The idea that because something is on paper makes it somehow better is patently ridiculous. Where is the search for a start?

Re:No

[AceofSpades19]

That doesn't even make sense, so I guess according to that, C is a horrible language because the man pages are online?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the search for a start?

In the back of the book. Often it's called an 'index'. Maybe you've seen one before. Or do you not read much?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried using an index in a book once, but why they implement them using btree is beyond me. Not a very novel idea, if you ask me...

Re:No

[Intron]

Really good books pay a lot of attention to the traditional techniques of book publishing. This book has the best index and colophon I've seen for its subject.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno...the index header on wasp farming probably could have been subcategorized in more detail.

Lazy editors...

PHP.net is great.

[nog_lorp]

PHP has probably the best documentation of an language thanks to PHP.net. It is really wonderful, everyone should follow their lead.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Maian]

I don't know. I've recently had to use PHP for something, and I've been struggling to find out the performance of each function. For example, the php.net articles on count()/sizeof() functions on an array tell me nothing of whether it's O(1) or O(n). PHP really strikes me as a programming language for non-CS majors.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[UCFFool]

I still use php.net a ton for the nitty gritty of everything, but for 90% of it all, I found it sometimes tedious to deal with. If you want EVERYTHING, it's great. I dunno, in a way it inspired me to write a php book because I was spending too much time trying to figure out sprintf() because it's not very beginner friendly. Since I mentioned it, I'll post a link to the book blog and the creative commons pdf version (complete): phpreferencebook.com.

I also really like going to tizag.com for their tutorials and plain jane explanations.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Lunatrik]

Dunno who modded parent "funny", but for a non-coder like me, php.net is amazing. Very quick and straightforward solutions to just about every problem I've had.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[TLLOTS]

Just out of curiousity, why were you concerned with the performance of those functions?

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Just Some Guy]

PHP has probably the best documentation of an language thanks to PHP.net.

It had to:

$ curl -s http://www.php.net/quickref.php | grep 'function\.' | wc -l
5159

Not many people can memorize nearly 5,200 functions.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[tayhimself]

You can use the microtime() function. Additional details website posted below to check

http://phplens.com/lens/php-book/optimizing-debugging-php.php I think php necessitates the usage of php.net etc because the functions don't seem to follow any kind of sane design or pattern. I mean (hypothetically) array_search() vs search_array() etc.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the context I somewhat gather you're referring to the user contributed commentary/notes.

If that's the case, I'd also dare to say it's the work of non-coders like you which ends up being displayed on sites like The Daily WTF and perhaps even Zone-H.

A lot (if not most) of user contributed commentary/notes provided at PHP.net is not exactly the most elegant code out there and some offer outright dangerous advice e.g. regarding security vulnerabilities.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[mcrbids]

I use PHP every day. I love PHP. It is an awesome, flexible, powerful, responsive rapid application development language for any kind of text processing and "cloud services" need. It's typical for me to write 10-20 lines of simple, elegant PHP code that performs wonders matched only by hundreds of lines of C. I'll put it simply: I've bet my farm on PHP, and it's paid off wonderfully. It's stable, fast, and extremely dense when measured in functionality per line of code.

But my one true beef with PHP - one of two beefs in all - is its inconsistent API.

For example:

Here's one that drives me nuts to no end: in_array($needle, $haystack); vs strstr($haystack, $needle);

Here's another that makes x-platform DB stuff a serious pain: mysql_query($query, $db_connection); compared to pg_query($db_connection, $query);

I mean, WTF? How could I possibly remember the difference between these two almost identical functions with EXACT OPPOSITE PARAMETER ORDER!?!?! So php.net gets hit by me. Daily. Constantly. Zend pays the price for not thinking through the conventions of their API with my daily hits on their website.

I would *LOVE* a fork of PHP where the ordering is consistent. To be fair, the fork would have to be retro-compatible with the existing PHP API so that current PHP scripts don't break. This may be more painful than it's worth; I'd suggest prepending all functions in the alternate API with some special character (eg: "_" or "^" as in _mysql_query($conn, $query); )

My other beef? Lack of thread support. It may be due to the apache process limits of mod_php, but the fact that I can't run several threads inside a single memory space sometimes just drives me NUTS. So when lots of work needs to be done by lots of processors in a very short period of time, I have to fork() like crazy with a PHP script run from a shell call with shmop_* or temporary named pipes all over the place. It's fugly to say the least. Thankfully, the number of problems that won't fit into a single process (sans threading) are small, so the hack level is kept to a minimum - for now.

As processes get bigger, and processors develop ever more cores, this limitation will become increasingly a problem. Already, it's normal for a new, mid-range server to have 16 cores, each running at > 2 Ghz, which means that any single PHP script can only access 1/16 of the total available processing power. With current trends, in another couple years that will jump to 64 cores, and at that level, thread support becomes almost a requirement, even for highly parallel, concurrent activity.

Seriously - who wants to be limited to using only 1/64 of the available processing power? Not me. I hope that PHP 6 handles this.

Oh... go PHP.net!

Re:PHP.net is great.

[FooBarWidget]

count() on an array is apparently O(n). Yeah it baffled me too.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Anonymous Coward]

5,200 *built-in* functions. Not all of them exist in all configurations, though.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Anonymous Coward]

sizeof is an alias of count. There should be no difference in the performance between the two.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[geoffspear]

It's typical for me to write 10-20 lines of simple, elegant PHP code that performs wonders matched only by hundreds of lines of C.

Or 1 line of perl.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[mcrbids]

Or 1 line of perl.

Except that I can *read* my 10-20 lines after the fact... and so can somebody else!

Re:PHP.net is great.

[nog_lorp]

Some are built-in functions that are configuration dependent, most are from extensions though (so not built in).

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a ridiculous complaint. Of course they're both O(1). PHP wasn't written by idiots like the idiots at Microsoft that make even their mighty new LINQ that they brag about O(n) on even stupidly simple functions. Example of LINQ in C#:

var orders = from n in db.Orders
                        select n;

output.Append("The number of orders is " + orders.Count());

which is very slow.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[nog_lorp]

I can read the one line of perl.

"While open parenthesis open angle bracket close angle bracket close parenthesis tilda equals forward slash ..."

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Maian]

Because if I use them in an oft-traversed loop, I'll get a significant performance penalty. If they were O(n), then I should keep track of the size myself in another var.

In any case, I'm pretty sure they're O(1). I've did a couple tests to verify that.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Maian]

At least on my version of php (5.2.3), I'm very sure it's O(1). I've run a couple test on it.

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Maian]

I'm aware I can time these myself, but is it really too much to ask for them to provide this information up front?

Re:PHP.net is great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the best kind? (Speaking as a CS major)

Re:PHP.net is great.

[on the 8ball]

Here's one that drives me nuts to no end: in_array($needle, $haystack); [php.net] vs strstr($haystack, $needle); [php.net]

Here's another that makes x-platform DB stuff a serious pain: mysql_query($query, $db_connection); [php.net] compared to pg_query($db_connection, $query); [php.net]

You could just write some 1-line wrapper functions for these poorly designed ones that have the parameters in a consistent order. Name them with a 'my_" prefix and you will remember them easily. And stick them in the ever-popular generic functions library include file that everybody uses. Just a thought...

Ruby

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the ri command

Re:Ruby

[magus_melchior]

... and if you wanted Rails, it's: rubyonrails.org

Re:Ruby

[Anonymous Coward]

Also worth mentioning for Ruby and Rails is:
http://apidock.com

And for jQuery, there's Visual jQuery:
http://visualjquery.com/

Re:Ruby

[DragonWriter]

The official site is always a good bet. But I also make it a habit to memorize the url to the rdoc of whatever I'm doing:

For anything that's a gem, if you've got it installed with the rdoc (which you can generated with "gem rdoc" for any installed gem that doesn't install the rdoc by default), you can just run "gem server" on the machine its installed on, and then access the rdoc from that machine. You don't need to rely on external documentation sites...

Re:Ruby

[SanityInAnarchy]

jQuery isn't a gem, it's a Javascript library.

Still, I always forget about that, and I do tend to use the official site. Sometimes, things are covered a lot better outside the rdoc itself.

Re:Ruby

[SanityInAnarchy]

Visual jQuery was out of date, last I checked. It also doesn't cover nearly all the plugins that exist these days.

Haskell

[cdfh]

Aside from the obvious, there are some interesting papers, essential reading, a mailing list, a tutorial, and even a (reasonably complete) wikibook.

Re:Haskell

[piojo]

I hate to say it, but that's the biggest thing I don't like about Haskell. Whenever I ask a question in their IRC channel or looked something up online, I'm referred to a paper. I felt like to do anything interesting in the language, I had to be an academic or scientist. I think there's a dearth of simple tutorials/recipes for Haskell.

Re:Haskell

[jefu]

The book "Real World Haskell" coming out next month should help with that quite a bit. Even better the text of the book is available online .

This has also been an interesting experiment of sorts: as each chapter was written it was put online so that people could read it and help find errors and problems. I don't know how the authors feel, but it looked like it worked pretty well indeed.

Re:Haskell

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I'm excited to buy that book.

C: K&R.

[proidiot]

For C, use the most holy book:
K&R
(aka "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie, http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/)

Re:C: K&R.

[mr_mischief]

Make sure to use the second edition, which covers ANSI C (which is practically ISO C89).

Re:C: K&R.

[Shaterri]

20 years ago this was a great idea, and Kernighan&Ritchie stands up as a fine example of technical writing (IMHO at least), but the coding guidelines there (short variable names, some of the control structure idioms, and even arguably the brace conventions) were written for an age when you had a reasonable shot at out-optimizing your compiler, there was a good chance you were developing on an 80x24 terminal, and it was critical to write for speed over clarity. In the modern world of IDEs and optimizing compilers a lot of K&R is just painful.

Re:C: K&R.

[raddan]

K&R style, maybe. But it's still useful to have your code wrap to some consistent length-- there's nothing worse than reading someone else's shitty 200-column-wide code in a terminal. There are LOTS of terminals still in use. Not to mention (I don't remember where I heard this-- Oualline's book?), if you can't fit a function call in 80 columns, you might want to rethink about what you're doing. There's probably a better, simpler way.

But style aside, the content of the book is classic, especially when you start getting into systems programming. These guys had the logical structure of a good computer system worked out a long time ago! Considering that the UNIX C API was basically the first draft of POSIX, reading this book is a must if you ever want to play with the low-level (aka, fun) parts of your operating system. This book almost never leaves my desk, even though I do most of my work in Perl and PHP nowadays.

I love C because it is a sparse programming language that is very expressive, mainly due to pointers. That has a big influence on my code in other languages, for better or worse. But I find C to be very readable, and I try to do the same for other programs. A lot of "modern" languages just look like barf to me, but I'm probably biased.

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

eh... many C programmers are developing on 80x24 and to write code that wraps around is evil.

K&R still rules and that book is genius.

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oualline's book is probably the worse way to learn C++. Learn C++ in 21 days blows it away.

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno where you get the idea that I'm interested in catering to the weirdness of people stuck in the computer interface of the 70s. Catch up to the times.

Re:C: K&R.

[rs79]

I expected to find the book online. Instead, there's a link to buy it on Amazon.

Figgers. I didn't get the book, I got a pointer to the book.

(Sorry)

(not)

Re:C: K&R.

[dargaud]

I've never liked the K&R, even later versions, much preferring Harbison & Steele "C - a reference manual". I've worn out 3 editions so far. But that's offtopic since the question was about online presence. For this comp.lang.c remains the most useful.

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

alright! THE holy book of C programmers.

you're a whinie if you think it's not. :-P

Re:C: K&R.

[bytesex]

Beeeeh. Short variable names are good. The only people who say that short variable names are bad, are those that use more than, say, ten variables in a function, whose bodies are more than, say, twenty lines long. And who don't realize that *that* is their crime. Now, non-static struct members ought to be descriptive, but conventions still apply; so 'id', not 'identifier'. The same goes for 'auto' function names; they should be descriptive; the static ones can be short. Oh, and one 'auto' function per file, please, and don't forget to call all the other ones static. And pre-declare the 'auto' function on top, and document it there. Using multiline commentary.

Re:C: K&R.

[PJOttawa]

Contrast that "short variable names" (peer comment to this) suggestion with the .Net world with object.submember.submember.submember.doSomethingSimple() and each of those submembers is 20 characters long, style guidelines become harder to adhere to. So to shorten the line you add a new line and create a temp variable to handle a couple of levels of submember and then your code is shorter column-wise but longer linewise. And how about tab-widths????

Re:C: K&R.

[raddan]

I feel your pain. I think that the long variable name convention, while expressive, ends up being harder to work with, and as a result, makes code harder to maintain in the end.

Fortunately, I don't work with languages where that kind of convention is required, so I just don't do it. Even member variables of moderate length I have a tendency to make references to. Actually, in general, I've found that judicious use of typedefs and also appropriate modularization (with short local variable names) helps with this a bunch, too.

Re:C: K&R.

[againjj]

My book of choice is C: A Reference Manual. It is by far and away the clearest most complete reference I have found. I have the fourth edition, and one thing that I love is how it describes compatibility be tween version from K&R through C99 and C++, so you can know what will work where. It also manages to describe the preprocessor in an understandable way.

Re:C: K&R.

[jeremyp]

These guys had the logical structure of a good computer system worked out a long time ago!

So why did they scrap it and curse us with Unix and C instead?

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen Hallelujah. I haven't kept any other programming book as near and dear as the K&R C book. I bought the hard cover edition and just love how simple and sleek it is. Worth every penny.

Re:C: K&R.

[bored]

If your using a terminal to for actual programming, then you seriously need to reconsider your situation.

Setup some kind of file sharing (file push over serial, whatever) and use a more modern machine for editing the code. Get yourself a nice programmers editor with syntax highlighting, variable completion, hinting, tags/cross reference, etc. Every programmers editor I've used for the past two decades had some kind of scripting capability which would allow you to script a remote update/compile sequence and bind it to a key. The savings in productivity will seriously outweigh the cost and initial configuration time.

Once you have done that, and are sitting in front of a modern editor running over two or three monitors, your going to discover that styles created for 80x25 terminals are not optimum. Your going to discover that 5-25 character variable names massively increase readability and therefor maintainability, your going to discover a whole new world. The result will be a discovery that, its really hard to express anything in 80 columns after you have eaten up 16 columns for two 8 character tab stops, and each variable/function name takes up 1/4 of the total space available.

I don't have any sympathy for people using a terminal now days. You can get junk PC's and high resolution CRT's out of the dumpster. If you can't figure out how to use those machines for text editing instead of a dumb terminal, even if your target is a 30 year old mainframe, you shouldn't be programming,

When your done, we can have the conversation about why the K&R book had its syntax updated, but not its style. Many of the stylistic things in K&R directly result in _BUGS_ or hide them. That book is rife with examples which result in code which can be exploited for buffer overflows or dozens of similar problems. Basically, put K&R on the shelf and pull it down when you have a grammar question, but _DON'T_ write programs like the examples.

Re:C: K&R.

[vic-traill]

I've never liked the K&R, even later versions, much preferring Harbison & Steele

I'll second the Harbison & Steele recommendation, but push for a K&R recommendation - it's just a fun and informative read. A copy of each of this books is all that I every really needed (and I wasted money on other books that I shouldn't have, including one by Schildt before I knew any better). Of course, I'm 12 years out of doing any serious coding for a living, so what the hell do I know?.

about online presence. For this comp.lang.c remains the most useful.

Again, I second this recommendation. Read, think and learn. If you're going to post, check the FAQ first for questions, and if you're answering, make sure you know what you're talking about. There are an awful lot of very smart people reading your post, and you won't get away with anything trite or bs.

Re:C: K&R.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a horrible book, which teaches bad coding style. Take their examples on comparing strings, where they end up abusing a for-loop, making what actually happens completely incomprehensible.

K&R have the problem that they wrote a programming language and thought that they need to show all the weird things they could get to work rather than how to code nicely.

NEVER try to outsmart the compiler. The compiler generates better code than you, and if you try to be clever, you just hide what you want to do from the compiler, and this makes its optimisations less efficient.

Your language is too bloated

[Waffle Iron]

... if the complete reference can't be included inline in a /. post. Here's all you need to know:

    > increment the pointer (to point to the next cell to the right).

    < decrement the pointer (to point to the next cell to the left).

    + increment (increase by one) the byte at the pointer.

    - decrement (decrease by one) the byte at the pointer.

    . output the value of the byte at the pointer.

    , accept one byte of input, storing its value in the byte at the pointer.

    [ jump forward to the command after the corresponding ] if the byte at the pointer is zero.

    ] jump back to the command after the corresponding [ if the byte at the pointer is nonzero.

Re:Your language is too bloated

[kat_skan]

Eight opcodes!? Luxury! Real programmers only use subtract and branch if negative.

Re:Your language is too bloated

[armanox]

That would be Brainfuck for anyone not familiar with the language.

Re:Your language is too bloated

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, fuck it!

Re:Your language is too bloated

[Anonymous Coward]

You have *decrement* and *jump back* ???

So, you have some way of making *unClock* pulses, right?

Re:Your language is too bloated

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to laugh when I saw this. I recognized the language right away. The other programmers in my shop didn't though.

Re:Your language is too bloated

[jefu]

Way too much syntax. Just use unlambda. At it's core it is only three characters : s,k,' with rules (I think I have these right) :
` forces evaluation (when possible)
``kXY -> X
```sXYZ -> ``XZ`YZ

Unlambda programs tend toward the unreadable.

In the unlambda distribution there are some (unnecessary, but convenient) added operators.

JavaScript and ASP

[theverylastperson]

For years I have fallen back on http://itr.org/ for their wonderful Javascript F.A.Q.s

For asp I have fallen on the habit of going to google, typing the object name and 'asp', from there I find http://w3schools.com/ and http://4guysfromrolla.com/ to have the best code samples and descriptions of use. However, I hate navigating both of them so Google has become my default doorway into them.

I'm not ashamed to admit I hit http://experts-exchange.com/ as a last resort.

Re:JavaScript and ASP

[Anonymous Coward]

The website itr.org doesn't look like a Javascript FAQ assistant.

Re:JavaScript and ASP

[theverylastperson]

sorry, http://irt.org/

my fingers are faster than my brain, then again most things are.

There is a lot more than just javascript on their site, but I use them just for the javascript (here's a link to the actual page I use http://irt.org/script/script.htm)

Look through the whole site, you might find some other areas I've not seen. They've been around for a long time and the content always seems consistent in the areas I frequent.

www.gotapi.com

[YutakaFrog]

http://www.gotapi.com/ It's got all the good reference sites in one. You click the reference site, it adds a tab to the gotAPI webpage. It has a really good search box. No signup required. Best all-in-one reference ever.

Re:www.gotapi.com

[sehari24jam]

I use faster one : http://start.gotapi.com

Re:www.gotapi.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, gotapi.com documents old versions.

For instance, there have been major changes between Prototype 1.5 and 1.6, but gotapi only documents 1.5.

Re:www.gotapi.com

[xxdinkxx]

Did anyone else ready this goatse api? /do not want

Re:Cookbook site

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is a troll. But I think it's a necessary one.

It's a pathetic one. You've made no outrageous link from "this sorta piece" to "deserves to get offshored". You just stuck them in the same sentence. You should have written something to draw people along to agreeing or violently disagreeing with your assertion. You've given people nothing to bite on. It's a hook with no bait. Pathetic.

Universal Resource

[h4rdc0d3]

gotAPI is an excellent resource for just about any/every programming language, including many frameworks.

Visual Basic.Net?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed a lack of threads talking about good reference sites for VB.Net. Perhaps I should reconsider my language of choice?

Re:Visual Basic.Net?

[nurb432]

Because its so well documented internally you don't need an external reference guide.

so yes, if you are needing more answers then Microsoft provides with their shipped MSDN, you should be looking elsewhere for another simpler language.

( yes, this was sarcasm for the mod-nazis )

Essential Reference while you are coding in C++

[MarkKnopfler]

The STL reference . Please keep this page open when you are writing your C++....

Re:Essential Reference while you are coding in C++

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great site.

Also, The Open Group's SUS Reference for UNIX programming in C/C++. Better than googling.

Ruby

[magus_melchior]

In case no one's posted them yet:

Ruby home page, for starters.
RubyDoc, especially the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide with some excellent examples for those getting started.
Why's Poignant Guide, an offbeat way to get started.

LPC: http://lpmuds.net

[Cratylus_DS]

LPC: http://lpmuds.net/ Granted, it's just for writing games, but it's a fun language.

Other languages

[poopie]

SNOBOL - http://www.snobol4.org/

Logo - http://el.media.mit.edu/Logo-foundation/logo/programming.html

FORTH - http://www.phact.org/e/forth.htm

Prolog - http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/faq.html

Algol - http://www.algol68.org/

Lucid - http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Lucid

PL/I - http://www.users.bigpond.com/robin_v/resource.htm

Re:Other languages

[Anonymous Coward]

Niiiiiice. I bet I was the only pre-teen to know how to program in APL/PL/1 back in the early 80's. Of course the same could be said for Fortran, Cobol, RPG-I/II/III, Forth, Assembler(6052 family usually), among others. After a while they all became a part of a bigger(smaller?) meta-language where the only thing that really differs is the syntax. A quick reference sheet and I can program in any one of over 175 languages.

Missing Cowboy Neal option

[Drishmung]

you insensitive clod!!

Stupid question

[nurb432]

Ever think about going to the main site for the language and looking at their data sources?

Re:Stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the "main site" for C?

don't forget dzone

[dmayle]

And don't forget dzone.com. Ithe the best general development resource out there, linking to blog posts and articles of alltypes, language specific, algortihms, etc...

Isn't this a question for

[fyrie]

stackoverflow.com?

PLEAC

[Anonymous Coward]

http://pleac.sourceforge.net/

For ASP, ASP.NET and C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Use www.codeproject.com

google

[Anonymous Coward]

The reference sites don't have all the really useful stuff. When I have a problem, I google for that specific problem. Over the years I've found all kinds of stuff that I have made part of my regular programming practice. If I had gone to the 'best' reference sites, I would never have found that stuff.

Perl has by far the best docs

[Christianfreak]

The most annoying thing is having to go on the web to find a doc. PHP is horrifying enough and then you read the docs and find all the exceptions to whatever rule (and the bugs) in the comments.

For Perl:
perldoc -f [function name]

Or perldoc [Module::Name] (also man Module::Name works on most Linux distros)

Also on Linux, 'man perl' gives a list of a whole ton of man pages that give you specific information on regexes, objects, references, syntax, variables, etc.

And if you have to have it in a pretty web interface it is indeed all online
(module docs are as well)

Say what you want about Perl but it has tons of useful modules and it is very well documented.

.NET Languages

[Collegeguy]

For the .NET languages, such as XAML, C#, and VB.NET, I'd have to say that for general data on how to use the function, MSDN is a great resource, between their forums and MSDN online library. Google's also a great resource.

Oh yeah this is required!

[sbeckstead]

Having learned most of my programming languages before there was an internet I'm not sure of any web available references. I use books.
Quaint and old fashioned I know but what the heck. Oh and when I don't use books I use Google. Saves having to remember where I put those pesky links to all those programming language web sites.

ASP

[eqteam]

ASPFAQ (http://www.aspfaq.com/) has helped me more than a few times.

Google

[RPGonAS400]

I use Google for most searches. I program in the newer versions of IBM's RPG (I hear the snickers - STOP IT!).

I use IBM manuals quite a bit that I have saved in .pdf format. But for quick questions about RPG or SQL I find Google has the best answer on the first page if I am even remotely specific.

Common Lisp

[quickbasicguru]

For Common Lisp, the Common Lisp HyperSpec is hard to beat, though at times a book like Practical Common Lisp can be a little more useful.

Re:Common Lisp

[sinserve]

Aside from the hyperspec, nearly every asdf-installable package comes with sufficiently good documentation. I like the uniformity we're getting lately, I like the Weitz'ified documentation format :-)

C++

[magnosis]

http://www.cplusplus.com/ for APIs
http://www.codeproject.com/ for problem solving

Re:C++

[Bloater]

cplusplus.com?

good lord no. use it for iostreams quick reference at most.

http://www2.roguewave.com/support/docs/sourcepro/edition9/html/stdlibref/index.html

http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/Default.aspx?manual=compleat

note that dinkumware wrote much of msvc's c++ standard library.

http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C++-faq/

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use Eclipse you can configure the javadoc URL in your JDK configuration and pull up the pages from within the IDE. VERY handy.

Re:FYI

[BeeRockxs]

Shift-F2 is the shortcut you are looking for in Eclipse.

Re:FYI

[leenks]

Or better still, attach the source zip/jar/directory and then you can either browse the Javadoc as generated from the source in question, or hit F3 and view the source for the class/method/declaration your caret is over.

Re:FYI

[moonkev]

To add to this, if you use maven along with the maven-eclipse-plugin, configure the plugin to automatically download the javadoc jars from the repo. That way when you generate your eclipse descriptor from maven, your jars will be set on the javadoc lookup path for you. This does go without saying not all libs will have there javadoc in the repos and you would have to put the javadocs for any proprietary libs in your local repo (assuming they are available).

Re:FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Milano.

google

[Anonymous Coward]

google and php.net

jQuery

[CaptSaltyJack]

Kinda obvious (no more obvious than php.net being the best reference for php I suppose), but: http://docs.jquery.com/

Ansi C syntax

[supernova_hq]

If you are looking for Ansi C syntax,check this out. I know it's aol.com, but the guy has one heck of a reference page. It's all on one page (print it if you like) and EVERYTHING is referenced with hyperlinks. You can find by name, function, "similar to", library, etc.

There are no examples, but the documentation is top-notch.

C and C++

[StackedCrooked]

I may not like everything that Microsoft has done in the past, but its C and C++ references are top notch: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dtefa218.aspx

ruby for sake

[alien9]

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/

Re:PHP

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on reading the summary.

WebObjects

[tomtermite]

For WebObjects,
http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/Home

Parashift

[D Ninja]

C++ FAQ Lite is an excellent site for C++ information.

Re:Parashift

[Anonymous Coward]

The FQA is good also:

http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

Ruby and Rails

[knewter]

For Ruby as well as Ruby on Rails, I like http://apidock.com/. It's the first Ruby/Rails doc site that I've seen that has the ability to contribute, rate contributions, etc.

It also covers when methods changed by tags, so you can see that a method that's giving you trouble was changed the last version of rails, etc. Very intuitive interface.

For C++....

[try_anything]

SGI's STL site is excellent, though I'm not not sure how up-to-date it is.

The C++ Programming Language , by Bjarne Stroustrup, is the only essential and authoritative language reference, other than the standard itself. It isn't a web site, but programming in C++ isn't something you pick up on a whim.

And of course Boost, the first place to look when you think, "There should be a library for this."

All-in-one place

[Sargondai]

http://gotapi.com/

They're always adding new languages, and it only takes up one tab. This is wonderful when I'm bouncing from Python to Perl to Javascript to CSS to HTML to MySQL to...

You get the point.

Souce

[andrikos]

Ive learned that www.php.net is probably the most complete souce when looking for information/documentation

Tell me about the most complete sauce and you may get my appetite.

how to write unmaintainable code

[mdmarkus]

This site is good for a number of languages, particularly for Java. Just read it and do the opposite.

Re:how to write unmaintainable code

[freechina]

My personal favorite for C coding artwork

I don't code no more! I have enough trouble speaking Englisch!

Re:Cookbook site

[AceofSpades19]

Obviously since someone that is not necessarily from the us is asking on slashdot which is the best reference site for various languages, the us IT sector deserves to be offshored, even though people from other countries are not much better then the US at IT. *Disclaimer* I'm from Canada

why??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do stupid questions such as this one make it to slashdot?

Lua

[Samah]

Lua:
Official website: http://www.lua.org/
Direct link to manual: http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/
Lua community: http://lua-users.org/wiki/

Ruby

[jschimpf]

Ruby doc

Algol 68 Genie

[jejones]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jmvdveer/algol.html

Most popular languages are at Wikibooks

[Orion Blastar]

Wikibooks because if it isn't already there, someone will eventually write one and make it open sourced.

I invite Slashdot readers and posters to write their own ebooks at Wikibooks in an open source license.

OpenLaszlo

[spoco2]

My language of use for the past 3 years, OpenLaszlo has brilliant doco right there on the site. With a reference guide that lists all the objects, methods and events with live, editable examples for many.

And then if the documentation doesn't cover what you want, there's the great forums which have helped me out of plenty of sticky coding situations.

The doco was what drew us to OpenLaszlo in the first place. Well, that and the fact it's open source helped a lot!

For iPhone

[DanielG42]

http://developer.apple.com/iphone/index.action ;)

Re:For iPhone

[PenguinX]

iphonedevcentral.org is also pretty good for those (such as myself) who are not well versed in objective C.

scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[OrangeTide]

I think you misinterpreted the tongue-in-cheek language.

I don't know the reason why some languages (like C) have little online presence. There is comp.lang.c on usenet and the comp.lang.c FAQ. And a couple of online versions of man pages, but it's hard to learn C from man pages alone. And there is the C89/C99 specs, but I don't think that's a great way to learn C either. If you ignore usenet (most people do), I would venture to say there is basically nothing good about C online.

Compared to the books you can get that cover C programming, ones on algorithms, data structures, C itself, and various APIs. The web seems vastly inferior. I'm not trying to claim I know the reason why, I'm just pointing out that this is currently the case. Currently paper is better than electrons for SOME languages.

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misinterpreted the tongue-in-cheek language.

Reading your original post with an eye for this "tongue-in-cheek" language reveals nothing. What am I missing?

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[OrangeTide]

"The best programming languages...", I am saddened that people would think there is a best programming language. it reeks of elitism.

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, perhaps, language name with only single letter in it cannot be made google-friendly...

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[jonadab]

Well, by the time the web was invented in the nineties, C and C++ were already fully developed languages, and already fully documented. Every comp sci program already had classes on it, too, and *most* of the people who were ever going to do serious programming in these languages were already doing it. New young aspiring programmers were picking up languages like Perl and Java (and later Python and Ruby).

That may not be the whole reason, but I bet it's got something to do with it.

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[LWATCDR]

Well for C the answer is simple.
the K&R whitebook. :)

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently paper is better than electrons for SOME languages.

Paper's got electrons, too, you insensitive clod! They're just not mobile. So you just insulted handicapped electrons!

Re:scissors beats paper, paper beats the internet

[OrangeTide]

That is the most interesting point so far in this thread! There has to be some sort of fancy search syntax one can use to search for a single letter. At least the language is not named A or I.

My new programming language will be called 'The'

Try Pike

[Skapare]

The LPC language used in LPMUD is available in a non-MUD system. It is called Pike.

For D

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/

Oh wait, *favorite* programming language? Never mind.

mismod / over the line!

[newr00tic]

Who the fuck modded him troll?

Not necessarily documentation/reference

[rob1980]

But I refer to 4guysfromrolla.com for .NET stuff. They have a lot of very good information on how to accomplish various tasks and everything is presented with "real world"-type examples which imo are better than what MSDN has to offer. If you're looking for a straight reference guide though, MSDN is what you want.

Please! Think about the...

[actionbastard]

Advanced Bash scripting guide.
Thanks MC.

For Microsoft based languages

[DeAgua]

For T-SQL, ASPX, Visual Basic, Visual C++, there's only one place to start... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.aspx

Re:For Microsoft based languages

[Zwitta22]

I have never seen such a complete reference for a language as the MSDN references for C# and VB .Net.

For Unix.

[onefriedrice]

Not for a programming language, but for Unix programming in general, Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment by W. Richard Stevens is amazing. Strong background in C is probably required. You might as well get the 2nd Edition by Stephen A. Rago which covers modern Unix variants (including the Unix-workalike, Linux). It's the best POSIX manual and reference I've come across.

Here are a few:

[Kingrames]

Java:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/

I do a little happy dance in my head every time this site helps me out. it's a bit intimidating until you use it, then it becomes the best java reference you could ask for.

Ruby:

use fxri. in windows, it's not just a live command-line style interpreter, it has a dictionary of relevant terms to search through to boot. it's like having a terminal inside of a reference book, and you shouldn't pass up the opportunity to try it out.

php:
http://www.php.net/docs.php

this one I use every time I use php. Not only does it tell you what everything does, but it tells you what's bugged, and how, and that way you can work around what would otherwise be a nasty problem.

I use these constantly at my job (fxri is the only calculator I know of that can calculate the factorial of 6022, so I use it for all my calculations!) and I hope you find them just as useful as I do.

Re:Cookbook site

[slimjim8094]

???

More importantly, do you expect him to memorize everything about everything in his language? I'm most familiar with Java; I should just *know* the syntax of creating a JDBC driver? God forbid I look it up and have the ability to research for task-specific one-time information. After all, Slashdot is a terrible place to find experienced programmers willing to share what works for them in their daily jobs.

And it would just be stupid to use an existing library or algorithm. Duplication of effort leads to much better code, as we all know.

In any case, I'm guessing you're not a coder as the syntax of your above comment is piss-poor. I'm still not entirely sure if you're trying to insult him, make fun of yourself, or convince him to come on to you.

The best Java reference

[Anonymous Coward]

The API reference at java.sun.com is great.

For all programming languages

[Abattoir]

Stack Overflow by Jeff Atwood.

ruby, rails

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruby's documentation is rather nice:
http://ruby-doc.org/

as well as rails's
http://api.rubyonrails.org/

Re:Cookbook site

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct, but that just corroborates OP's point. America can no longer even produce interesting trolls!

Free Java Lectures

[curmudgeon99]

Personally, I can only vouch for the content on one site: Free Java Lectures: Two Semesters of College-Level Java for free.

Intercal

[Bloody Peasant]

Guess I'd choose this page. Not that I'm an expert or anything... I'm probably better at Fortran :-)

For Machine Language, which everyone uses...

[gsgriffin]

I go to www.010001001101001010.101

Re:Cookbook site

[oldhack]

My bad...

Ruby

[facebiff]

http://ruby-doc.org/

Best site I know

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this site:

http://www.gotapi.com/html

Flamebait: Where's the COBOL site?

[Trip6]

MicroFocus has hijacked the www.cobol.com domain...

Re:Cookbook site

[Anonymous Coward]

A good troll would've cherry picked a half dozen responses and taken them to task in seriously unfair but funny fashion... HTML/CSS, they can leave the "for Dummies" off the title of the book. Object PASCAL, oh I bet they'll need a second server farm to serve all the clickthrus they're going to get. Like that.

Amazing secret sites

[Dahamma]

http://www.google.com/search?q=perl
http://www.google.com/search?q=python
http://www.google.com/search?q=java
http://www.google.com/search?q=asp

Try to guess the pattern to find more!

Re:Amazing secret sites

[ahmusch]

Yes -- and we all know that PageRank is perfect at separating wheat from chaff and gold from dross.

It's one thing to find data; it's another thing to find information.

Re:Amazing secret sites

[Dahamma]

Well, it seems to work pretty damn well for an idiotic question like "can you tell me the most popular sites for learning about X language?"

Oh no, you may have to try up to *3* links to find the site you prefer! I'm stumped, better post a question on /.!

COBOL Portal

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cobolportal.com/

booksite suggestion

[CoderFool]

While google and reference websites are helpful, it is also useful to have access to good programming books. I have really enjoyed Safari Books Online (www.safaribooksonline.com). In the 2 1/2 years I have been working as a programmer I have had to deal with perl, css, html, javascript, xml, mysql, vb/vba, asp.net, c#, transact-sql, java/jsf/jsp/j2ee, iis, tomcat, ant, apache, eclipse, and visual studio. It isn't practical for me to spend hundreds of dollars for a library of books, so I find the Safari site to be very useful. It's $20 a month for 10 books at a time or $50 a month unlimited access to books from O'Reilly, Microsoft, Pearson, etc.

What about Databases?

[cloneofsnake]

MS SQL: sqlservercentral.com

MySql?
Oracle?

Re:What about Databases?

[jimdread]

Mysql has manuals online, as does postgresql and Oracle.

Re:What about Databases?

[ahmusch]

Oracle: asktom.oracle.com for technique/problem solving with SQL.
                  technet.oracle.com or tahiti.oracle.com for documentation.

Re:What about Databases?

[bluej100]

MySQL's search is pretty bad, though. Make a Firefox quick search for "ml" to "http://www.google.com/search?btnI=&q=site%3Adev.mysql.com+%s".

SQLZoo.net is a good set of tutorials.

Some of my picks

[dmn]

C#/.NET - http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Haskell - http://haskell.org/
Nemerle - http://nemerle.org/
OCaml - http://caml.inria.fr/
PHP - http://php.net/
Python - http://python.org/
Ruby - http://ruby-doc.org/ (API docs), http://ruby-lang.org/ (for more links and info)
SML - http://smlnj.org/ (the most popular implementation), http://standardml.org/Basis/ (standard library)

(X)HTML/CSS/DOM/XSL/etc. - http://w3.org/

Hm. Now that I've written it down, I see most of these are obvious, but then it makes sense, that the "official" sites tend to be the best reference.

Re:Some of my picks

[dmn]

Ruby On Rails - http://rubyonrails.org/ obviously, but the interface to the library docs is rather unfriendly - try http://noobkit.com/ for something more pleasant to use.

Ruby

[kabloom]

You probably want to use the Ruby documentation at noobkit.com, and gem server for your more obscure RubyGems.

In general, I'm not really happy with any of the Ruby sites, because Rdoc is missing some important features, making it really difficult to determine what files to include when you want a certain functionality. I have described this problem and what I feel the solution should be at ruby-talk:295589 but nobody's done anything about it AFAIK.

Start at CPAN.Perl.org

[Doc Ruby]

No, start with CPAN.Perl.org , and look at the rest of Perl.org when you need more.

And google for perl fragments (along with (/usr/bin/perl OR /usr/local/bin/perl)) to see what people actually do, and how they do it.

Re:Start at CPAN.Perl.org

[TheLink]

I'm not so sure about the quality of random perl fragments from google searches.

I found the perlipc docs quite useful - if you're not just writing throwaway scripts you are going to have to handle signals and exceptions.

http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/perl-5.10.0/pod/perlipc.pod

Then there's also:
http://faq.perl.org/

Some people use the perl cookbook - http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596003135/

So far I haven't really had need to look at that much.

Re:Start at CPAN.Perl.org

[Bu11etmagnet]

But remember that 90% of everything is crap; I'd be vary of considering any code well written by default. Especially considering that Perl appears to be optimised towards unintelligible :)
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=494663

Re:Start at CPAN.Perl.org

[Myrddin Wyllt]

... google for perl fragments (along with (/usr/bin/perl OR /usr/local/bin/perl))..

Aren't we supposed to be using '#!/usr/bin/env perl' nowadays?

Re:Start at CPAN.Perl.org

[Doc Ruby]

There's More Than One Way To Do It.

But most of the existing code published on the Web, especially the basic stuff that they'd be googling for, uses the way(s) I mentioned.

And for security's sake, I always run an explicit absolute pathname. I don't know why I'd run what you just mentioned.

DevGuru.com

[InsertCleverUsername]

When I was getting my feet wet with standard stuff like SQL, JavaScript/DOM, HTML, etc. I found devguru.com to be very helpful. It's a great quick reference for several common languages/formats (mostly web-oriented). I think it's one of the best for legacy stuff like ADO, ASP, or VBScript.

Re:DevGuru.com

[dwarfsoft]

For VBScript I tend to use google to find specific things. I haven't found one site that really covers enough in one place. Most people will write off VBScript being that it is Microsoft and Windows is evil and all that.

Seeing as I use VBScript mainly for natively being able to pull information from LDAP directories from a Windows XP machine I must at least defend it.

MS Scripting Guy, DevGuru, 4GuysFromRolla, and last but not least ActiveXperts.

It depends if I want info on WMI, LDAP, or general WSH Objects.

For VB or MSVC++ its MSDN.

The main source of information just is.

*Ducks*

Re:Cookbook site

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Why? Cause people offshore don't use web resources to learn new languages?

If you are in Microsoft Land like most really are.

[jeffjcom]

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx Let the flaming commence.

Slime.

[sinserve]

(require :best-environment)
    ==> #

(asdf:operate 'asdf:lobotomy-op 'slashdot-crowd)
    ==> NIL

M-x common-lisp-hyperspec (or the corresponding keychord.)

Nothing like having SBCL and hunchentoot buzz 24/7, half way across the world, and knowing I can just do "screen -r" from any SSH client and have my Cadillac of development environments spring to life.

Assembly?

[r00t_of_all_evils]

Nobody's got any good links for Assembly programming?? I figured I'd see at least one...

Re:Assembly?

[sowth]

You mean besides Intel and AMD's websites? I think their specs cover just about everything, don't they? Nasm's docs do the rest.

I suppose there is linuxassembly.org if you want Linux / FreeBSD info.

Re:Assembly?

[Alioth]

The Zilog Z80 User Manual is very well written, and is a complete reference for all documented Z80 instructions, and even contains a simple reference design for a Z80 based computer.

You can find it at http://www.zilog.com/products/partdetails.asp?id=Z84C00

Why php.net is a great site

[pfbram]

php.net offers an excellent combination: formal function definitions, real-life user examples and comments, and cross-references to related functions. For all of Sun's over-engineering with Java, the javadocs are crap in comparison. As if they were written by a machine, very little in the way of example/commentary. (For what it's worth, I've been a professional PHP programmer for the past 8 years in a Big-10 research environment, and also do some Java as well.) Though we all have different learning styles, I find that most people learn by example. Java's docs are mainly "preaching to the choir", poor in comparison to PHP's.

Re:Why php.net is a great site

[Shados]

As if they were written by a machine

Thats because Javadoc -IS- machine generated =P Its just an API reference, not a full documentation per say, for better or worse.

Re:Why php.net is a great site

[Anonymous Coward]

per se
 
From Latin, approximately meaning "according to you"

Re:If you are in Microsoft Land like most really a

[Shados]

Technet is for the sysadmins/network & domain admins/DBAs.

For programmers in Microsoft Land, the main reference site is MSDN (or well, google with site:msdn.microsoft.com, because MSDN's search tool sucks)

HTML and CSS

[I.M.O.G.]

HTML/CSS: http://htmldog.com/

Very clear and to the point for the basics - its a great quick reference for those too lazy or uninterested who still write code for the web.

what about COBOL, PASCAL, FORTRAN ?

[aauu]

Do these languages have any net sites?

Re:what about COBOL, PASCAL, FORTRAN ?

[uncle slacky]

For FORTRAN: http://www.fortran.com/

For Ada: http://www.adahome.com/

HTH

COBOL on Cogs

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM .

ASP.Net

[Anonymous Coward]

For ASP.Net go to http://www.asp.net

gotapi.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Found gotapi.com after being disappointed with the rails api and searching, and have been quite happy with it. Nicely supports a range of things, I use it for javascript, rails, prototype, css, and html.

Re:Cookbook site

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no.

On one hand, if you can't google well enough, write test programs to figure out the answers, contact the official support for bought languages, ask questions on newsgroups and rtfm, are you even trying?

On the other, if you need an answer NOW and google isn't helpful (it's not on many things, ie APIs of specific hardware or looking up certain things that are more punctuation than words) and "official support" is unavailable (price tag / company politics) having as large a list of possible of good reference sites is a must. When my company went from completely trusting a small group of people with the web to somewhat trusting a larger group, this became an issue. Early attempts at filtering blocked almost everything. (Whitelists maintained by someone else and google don't mix) We've since had this resolved, but it took a while. The whole time though, we could submit a site as "good" if we knew what it was.

Our other option? Come back with the answer the next day. A bit problematic. You may know your preferred language in and out, you may know 3/4 of the Windows API, but when you tackle something new that one new API call, the barely documented piece of hardware or entirely new software package you're dealing with will require you to move beyond what you know. Personally, I'd much rather have a job that keeps me grasping.

Ruby

[SanityInAnarchy]

The official site is always a good bet. But I also make it a habit to memorize the url to the rdoc of whatever I'm doing:

ruby-doc.org/core
api.rubyonrails.org

Beyond that, it's more about the framework. For example:

ramaze.net
sequel.rubyforge.org

Beyond that, there's the source (and IRB + tab-completion), and for the really tough questions, the ruby-talk mailing list.

Can't really recommend the jQuery docs, as they're down half the time, the UI is lacking some critical features, and it doesn't seem to quite work in Konqueror. For a library claiming to be cross-browser, you should at least have your docs be cross-browser!

C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[rs79]

"The funny thing is that for some 20 years, before I started using Python, my favorite and almost only language was C, and I don't know of any really good site for C."

There isn't a site for C. That's because if you need one, you shouldn't be using it. Sorry. The spirit moved me.

The K&R book is all you need. Really.

Ok I guess somebody could summarize the book at openkandr.com or something. That'd be sorta cool. I betcha dmr would even help a bit which would be even more cool.

Somebody go do this. Really.

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[Anonymous Coward]

i2

(i2 2 short) ? isec& : i2;

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Steve Summit's FAQS?

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[bored]

While K&R makes an excellent reference book, you must be very careful not to write programs like they are written in that book. The newer versions have been updated to be compliant with the C standards, but the programming style is firmly stuck in the 70's. This leads to code which is frankly unmaintainable. For example, pointers have their purpose, but they should be avoided except where they truly make sense. For example, pointers in a link list make sense. Using pointers to access array elements is just plain stupid. The code becomes hard to read (which array does p point to again?, how far into p are we?) and is generally harder to debug from a crash dump.

The original excuse was *p was faster than p[index] is simply false with any modern compiler and machine.

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[rs79]

I've used C since 76. Back then it was a shorthand for assembly. You'd compile the program, look at the PDP-11 code is spat out (way cleaner than anything intel) and either run it or change the source.

The idea that *p isn't safe but p[i] is varies as a value for i.

I use pointers all over the place and always have. You know what? If you're careful and rigorous they're no more of a problem than adding.

I get the idea that in this fast food add visual studio world people aren't used to "do one thing, do 5 leverls of error checking, do one thing do 5 levels of error checking".

Look at Dan Bernsteins or Brian Reids code if you want to see how C should be written. And they alwazys use pointers, even where I'd use arrays.

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[tepples]

The original excuse was *p was faster than p[index] is simply false with any modern compiler and machine.

But isn't it still faster on modern architectures to pass two pointer arguments (p+startIndex, p+endIndex) to a function than to pass a pointer and two size_t (p, startIndex, endIndex)?

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[jgrahn]

While K&R makes an excellent reference book, you must be very careful not to write programs like they are written in that book. The newer versions have been updated to be compliant with the C standards

Not quite. There is no C99 edition of the book.

but the programming style is firmly stuck in the 70's. This leads to code which is frankly unmaintainable. For example, pointers have their purpose, but they should be avoided except where they truly make sense. For example, pointers in a link list make sense. Using pointers to access array elements is just plain stupid. The code becomes hard to read (which array does p point to again?, how far into p are we?) and is generally harder to debug from a crash dump.

Funny; I find loops which are based on pointers readable, and indexed loops unreadable. Work for a while with C++ and its standard library's iterator concept, and things like for(p=begin; p!=end; ++p) feel like the natural way to do such things. It's easy to reason about, it's not more prone to off-by-one or fencepost errors, and I fail to see how it's harder to debug a core dump of code done this way. And it's closer in spirit to the foreach loops which we know and love from Bourne shell, Perl and Python.

The original excuse was *p was faster than p[index] is simply false with any modern compiler and machine.

True. And also, with today's 64-bit adressing, storing a pointer instead of a small index can be a significant waste of memory.

Re:C, was (Re:Perl and Python)

[bored]

Work for a while with C++ and its standard library's iterator concept, and things like for(p=begin; p!=end; ++p) feel like the natural way to do such things. It's easy to reason about, it's not more prone to off-by-one or fencepost errors, and I fail to see how it's harder to debug a core dump of code done this way.

I do work in C++ almost exclusively (I'm of the school, that C++ is a "better" C). I do use the STL and iterators somewhat frequently, their shortcomings are many, and for a different discussion.

When debugging something I find it much easier to see 100 in a register, than 0x1FF3E64010. The 100 tells me how far from the base I am, which in my code usually has another number floating around close by telling me how long the structure is, and what the structure base should be. I've gotten burnt far to many times because a pointer got set to the wrong location initially, and proceeded to wander off to nowhere and crash. When that happens, I don't know if the initial condition was wrong, some arithmetic error on the pointer was wrong, someone else whacked the data structure, etc. Basically all you know is that something bad happened. In my code I can usually pin it down pretty quickly (which is the same for everyone), but in other peoples code I have to completely read and understand the total picture before I can start to narrow down the causes. I can't tell you how many times some genius wrote some clever piece of pointer code that gets past code reviews and a few months of testing to fall on my lap for a few days of head banging that would have been instantly obvious or flat out impossible (due to reusing pointers) with array syntax and more rigorous style.

There are literally probably two dozen cases I could give against K&R style pointers, and not just on maintainability or readability, but on things like compiler optimization where pointer aliasing is a _MAJOR_ problem for optimizing and parallelizing compilers (there are probably hundreds of code optimization tricks published in papers over the last decade or so which just don't work in C due to the loose use of pointers, even with noalias switches), to code analysis tools that simply cannot find problems with pointer based code because they cannot figure out intent. These same tools have a 100% accuracy when you use an index out of bounds on a data structure.

I swore off using pointers a few years ago except when necessary (and whole other parts of the language) after seeing the mess that can be made at job after job. I f*ck up, so I need solutions to avoid it. It seems the majority of programmers think they are better than all the other programmers and never make mistakes so they don't try to create habits which force the mistakes out in the open. Its also why I started matching braces and using 10-25 character function/variable names. Making my variable names long forces me to pause and think about a good name. I've got a bunch of "habbits" which cause my code to fail what many people consider good taste, as a result I seem to actually be able to avoid some common problems. I write a lot of heavily multithreaded, real time, high performace code (my current project can litteral max out memory bandwith and process Gbytes of data a second) with what i consider is a pretty low bug count. Once in a while I even run into some poor basdard who ends up maintaing my code and they say that initally it drove them nuts, but now that they have been maintaing it for a while they like it.

javajunkies.org

[omission9]

javajunkies.org is a site for java that had/has a lot of potential. Never got the community like that of perlmonks though. Maybe posting a link to /. will change that? ;)

Shell scripting, anyone?

[juhtolv]

It seems none of you have given reference sites about programming with shells, like Bourne Shell and its derivatives, like bash, ksh and zsh.

... the documentation for the language is the best

[BitZtream]

Much like your php.net reference, as usual, the author/manufactures documentation is the best reference for practically all languages. Now days I don't know of anyone who actively develops languages that doesn't have online documentation.

I'm not sure why you had to ask the question however?

MS Dev

[MadF0rce]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library

For .Net stuff (similar to php.net)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library/w0x726c2.aspx
Check the class library (or search)

Particularly the .Net Framework Library

The other option is to install the Visual Studio library press F1 on an intelisense item ie
System.Web.UI.TextBox and the object pops up in a help window (like back in the good old days of Borland C/Pascal).

ASP Specific (AJAX etc) check the "How do I"
www.asp.net (the learn tab has vids)

Silverlight
www.silverlight.net (vids under learn)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library/bb404700(VS.95).aspx

Re:MS Dev

[Bovarchist]

What really bugs me about MSDN is that it's never quite all there. If I'm working with relatively new stuff, I often find the keyword or class I'm looking for, but then it won't have the information I need. Or it will only have an incomplete method or property reference to go with it. Last week I was looking up the new spatial methods in SQL 2008 and discovered an entry with the wrong example. I've complained about this to MS for years, but perhaps I'm the only one complaining. I can always find what I need with google, but I've found that having a complete reference in front of me (like the one php.net provides) can be more rewarding.

Re:MS Dev

[Amouth]

i find the msdn extreamly useful.. just a pain to find what i want.. the search on the MSDN is pointless.. so i just end up searching site:msdn.microsoft.com xyz on google.. and there it is.. except here recently google keeps linking to the jap lang version instead of the eng

Re:MS Dev

[darkvizier]

One of Microsoft's strengths is their good documentation. They may not have it all, but they have most of what you need, and it's well worded and organized. Compare that to say, Ruby on Rails documentation, which is poorly organized, rarely contains versioning information, and the framework itself breaks compatibility with nearly every release.

These factors combine to make learning Rails a masochistic experience. I think I may need to take up another vice soon. Maybe cigarettes... that seems the proper thing for engineers. Ah, the price I pay for keeping my soul...

Hey!

[martin_henry]

What about assembly?

For perl and cpan

[tknd]

Specifically search.cpan.org.

Sometimes I browse around to see what I might come up with for new modules. The documentation is awesome because not only is it formatted, but you also can link directly to a specific version, see the installation test report for various OSes for that version, see submitted bugs, other comments and module dependencies.

Two main sources

[readin]

O'Reilly books and Google.

Best site for real programmers

[divec]

http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Malbolge_programming

or perhaps

http://www.samaritans.org.uk/

Re:Cookbook site

[Tablizer]

*deserves* to get offshored.

A comedian used to joke that the best way to ruin a good party is to suddenly shout, "brain tumor!". Your comment is the geek equivalent.
       

What's up with OL?

[Gazzonyx]

I looked at OL about three years ago (when they had just released their Eclipse IDE plugin), and it always struck me as a really cool language with the ability to do so many things, but without a following whatsoever. The website was somewhat incomplete and everything looked like it was a work in progress by a single guy or something. What's the deal with it? Is it gaining ground, is it keeping up with AJAXy stuff? The only reason I strayed away from it was that I got this feeling it would be gone without a trace in a few years.
At about the same time that you started to use OL, I chose not to and decided to gain better mastery of the languages I use; are you happy that you decided to use it? Should I go back and give it a second look?

Re:What's up with OL?

[spoco2]

We love it ourselves, and am finally close to launching our large web application that has its client completely encoded in it.

It's being really actively developed (ie. Now you have Flash OR DHTML as a runtime for the same chunk of code... which is pretty cool), there is quite a large group of people using it (the forums are very active). The company that leads the development, Laszlo Systems, is doing well for themselves with a variety of spin of services and the like (we are in direct contact with them).

So, yeah, if you're after a language that gives you an Object Orientated way of programming web clients that can render in either Flash or DHTML, and does so with no cost (not for the coding environment or server licensing fees), then I highly recommend it.

Of course... I would say that as I'm pretty bloody proficient in it now and want to be a valued resource when it takes over the world :)

Re:gExp

[zobier]

http://www.regular-expressions.info/

I'll just leave this here.

Dear programming languages:

[rs79]

Hi there all you programming langauges. I've called you all here because we need to talk. There's some things I need to get off my chest.

SNOBOL

If the world revolved around writing backgammon games, baby, you'd be the end all be all. But you're bloody useless at anything else. You're pretty but uselss.

Logo

You wear me out. I have to tell you to do everything.

FORTH

DARLING I MISS YOU. Where are you?

Prolog

You look good on paper, but you scare me. Remember that time in Beverly Hills? You have some very odd friends. And what's with the pink ties?

Algol

Oh algol. We had some great times together. But there is life after college, really.

Lucid

Lucid: you aren't. You should have been called "heroin".

PL/I - http://www.users.bigpond.com/robin_v/resource.htm

PL/I you are the perfect ex langauge. There's nothing to like about you and I don't miss you. Hell I don't even remember you that well any more. You're so damn difficult even your name cant be used in a URL because you screw that up. Put skip THIS, bitch.

Forth come back! All is forgiven. Let's just you and me go someplace and dup dup dup. Or was that postscript. No no, she's just a friend.

Aww dammit. Forth? Honey?

Re:Dear programming languages:

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG... A programmer as old as me...

Java

[LunarEffect]

I think for java, nothing beats this: http://java.sun.com/reference/api/index.html

Not quite.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

It's still all but impossible to write real, large, complex, maintainable systems in Scheme without using implementation-dependent extensions for module systems, user-defined types and macros. Therefore, those references that you mention will not be enough, and always will need to be supplemented by implementation documentation. (R6RS Scheme aims to correct this, but it's still too recent to have been widely adopted.)

What's worse, however, is that while many Scheme implementations come with good reference manuals, there is much less in the way of tutorial material that demonstrates how to use it to build complex software. Most people learn such things from example, so language and library references, while essential, don't really help most people get started.

(I do work at a job where I get paid to write Scheme software, so no, I don't say this because I'm a hater...)

Re:Not quite.

[klutometis]

It's still all but impossible to write real, large, complex, maintainable systems in Scheme without using implementation-dependent extensions for module systems, user-defined types and macros.

That's fair.

I write Scheme for a living, too, however, and get pretty far with RnRS and the SRFIs; but whereas implementations like, say, Chez and PLT have peculiar extensions to explore, I find that Scheme48 and Chicken behave generally as expected.

Re:Not quite.

[The_Wilschon]

Hey klutometis, j85wilson here. I generally just treat the various scheme implementations as separate languages to a large degree. As somebody recently said (I can't remember who), most schemes are themselves very portable, so there is a sense in which portability from one scheme to another isn't really that important.

Re:Not quite.

[klutometis]

Nice to see you outside of #scheme, man; your argument is exactly why I think R6RS is a red herring: what tangible benefit would inter-scheme portability confer, anyway? On the other hand, it takes some pre-planning to get the right scheme for the right project.

Re:Cookbook site

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because they do. Most of them cut & paste and hack they're way through stuff without ever knowing what they are actually doing (which ironically seems to also be the sort of US IT professional the GP says deserves to be outsourced). But, now instead of having a hack that you can walk down the hall and slap when necessary (and how speaks proper English), you have one halfway across the globe that you can't touch. ;-)

Google

[Ranger]

It's just a matter of figuring out the right keywords to search for. Most of the time I'll find a discussion thread that leads me to my answer to solve whatever programming problem I'm working on.

My current language of choice is Python.

I think I'm to young to be saying this, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

~$ man
~$ pydoc
~$ perldoc
~$ man perl
etc...

PHP is a serious programming language to write serious programs by serious programmers and serious programmers don't need documentation.

Yeah I need a good COBOL reference too

[commodoresloat]

I'm *still* trying to fix all the Y2K problems in my company....

BF Instruction Minimalization

[fxkr]

You might want to take a look at this.

Esoteric Languages

[fxkr]

For esoteric languages, see: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page

ABAP

[anerki]

I generally like http://abap.wikiprog.com/ for ABAP most, though SAP's own SDN works fine most of the time.

Objective-C and Cocoa

[wumpus188]

Almost 300 replies and no mention of Objective-C ?

developer.apple.com - Apple documentation, good reference but sometimes lacking in details
cocoadev.com - Cocoa wiki
cocoabuilder.com - Cocoa mailing list archives

Re:Objective-C and Cocoa

[Wizard Drongo]

I know; I was just about to post the same damn thing.

We mac-programmers should stick together. Maybe all four of us should meet up some time and party. :)

Sucks how few mac programmers there are out there. Objective-C is better than C++ imho and far easier to understand. No cryptic method names here!

Saying that, with Apple's market-share rising daily and iPhone being a Obj-C platform, maybe our day is coming :)

You can always build your own cluster of Sites

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can not find a perfect source of programming languages, you can always build your own topic search engine at http://www.buildasearch.com in less than 5 minutes.

Feeling lucky?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best reference is your browser address bar aka your search engine of choice. Going to any site in particular is just an extra step, much like reading this /. article...

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

C++ STL: SGI's STL site (http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/), RogueWave's STL reference (http://www2.roguewave.com/support/docs/sourcepro/edition9/html/stdlibref/index.html)

Google Groups

[Richard Fairhurst]

is the place that I find most rewarding for Hard Algorithm Questions.

Regular Google is cluttered up with SEO crap and dear old experts-exchange. Clicking on the Groups 'tab' gets past all that to a load of really useful stuff that isn't indexed by regular Google.

Of course, you have to wade through the Usenet kooks, but hey, at least that's more fun than paywall sites.

jdocs.com

[the_olo]

For Java: JDocs.com.

Search from one place in almost all OSS projects' API docs (of course including J2SE and J2EE). Search box with instant AJAX autocompletion.

Actionscript

[outlando]

http://www.actionscript.org/ http://www.kirupa.com/

Re:Tcl -- don't miss the wiki, it's full of stars

[MACC]

http://wiki.tcl.tk/
The site has a plethora of
reference and example pages.

if you can't find an answer
ask in comp.lang.tcl ( the most polite and helpfull ng i know of )
or go to http://wiki.tcl.tk/1299
and describe / post your problem
on the latest "Ask" page.

G!

MACC

XML and C#

[RoboJ1M]

For XML I use W3Schools.
For C# I use MSDN Online, a lot of The Code Project and just Google for the rest.

J1M.

GotAPI

[spockboy]

+1 http://www.gotapi.com/

ICON

[lingu1st]

ICON: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/

The original dead tree books are all available
as PDFs, and have been put in the public domain.

Beautiful language.

S.

C/C++/Java/Perl/Python references

[phrank]

C
    The GNU C Library
    http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/

C++
    Standard Template Library Programmer's Guide
    http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/

    Boost C++ Libraries
    http://www.boost.org/doc/libs

Java
    Java(TM) Platform, Standard Edition 6 API Specification
    http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/

Perl
    Perl version 5.10.0 documentation
    http://perldoc.perl.org/

Python
    Python Library Reference
    http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html

For learning C and C++, I recommend these books:

    Kernighan, Ritchie: The C Programming language
    Kernighan, Pike: The Practice Of Programming
    Koenig, Moo: Accelerated C++: Practical Programming by Example
    Sutter, Alexandrescu: C++ Coding Standards

Both pay sites but

[Big Hairy Ian]

http://www.clarionmag.com/ http://www.clarionfoundry.com/

Standard Library?

[flavious]

I ask: what is the best documentation/reference site for your prefered programming language?"

Oh, you mean the standard library being used? Because most programming languages have such a thing.

NetFxGuide.com for .Net 3.0

[Anonymous Coward]

NetFxGuide.com has got a lot of stuff to learn .Net 3.0. Unfortunately it doesn't look it has been updated recently with .Net 3.5.

All-in-one

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of bookmarking one page (or more) per language, I just bookmark one page for everything.

http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/programming.html

FAQTS

[olahaye74]

Since a long time, I'm using http://faqts.com/ It's not exactly a reference site, but it answers tons of technical questions in many areas. It started with java and php, but now, the topics are realy wide, ranging from python, php, ... to education, religion, qrt and far more...

PostScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe writes really, really good documentation:
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/ps/sdk/index_archive.html

Especially The PostScript Language Tutorial and Cookbook (Blue Book) and PostScript Language Program Design (Green Book)
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/ps/sdk/sample/index_psbooks.html

This is a good article why you should use PostScript: Adobe's PostScript® language, and why "direct" PostScript makes sense
http://www.anastigmatix.net/postscript/direct.html

And don't forget that GhostScript also is an interpreter and interactive developer environment for PostScript. Makes trial and error fun. (The PDF viewer part in GhostScript is written in PostScript, that tell something about the flexibility of the language.)

search.cpan.org

[jonadab]

I would rate search.cpan.org as the most useful site I have encountered for any programming language.

Python.com

[Peaker]

Python's one, at least, is fairly obvious... :-)

Limbo

[CondeZer0]

The Inferno Documentation Archive is a good place, specially:

• A Descent into Limbo by Brian Kernighan.
• The Limbo Programming Language by Dennis M. Ritchie.

Best Python tutorial (at least from my opinion)

[tehnerd]

Well, I was wondering why nobody mentioned it yet, so I'll throw in my 3.14159 cents.

http://diveintopython.org/

a neat and tidy guide, after which u'll end up loving snakes..

na hawedere!

may the alps be with u's

C++ Standard Library

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best documentation for the C++ standard library is the Roguewave one.
http://www2.roguewave.com/support/docs/sourcepro/edition9/html/stdlibref/index.html

Laziness

[mapkinase]

Bookmarks do not work for me, but I have found that a good reference is always within first page of Google search for a given language.

C#

[Anonymous Coward]

MSDN

ASP.NET

[nx6310]

http://www.asp.net/

Yup

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Perl itself is exceedingly well documented, and the whole perl community has been YEARS ahead of the curve in terms of documentation for libraries, code examples, and just general support and good information.

ActionScript & Flash

[Tronster]

I've been doing Actionscript 2 (AS2) based Flash for awhile, and recently picked up Actionscript 3. Below are sites that I've found to be the best for either:

For (video-based) tutorials, gotoandlearn - http://gotoandlearn.com/
For reference, Kirupa's Flash Forum - http://www.kirupa.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6

REBOL is the Choice !

[Hecatombles]

REBOL is the best language ever (feel free to flame me)

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Main_Page
REBOL3 is under development

Here is a link to everything written for REBOL2.

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/R2_Documentation

Hecatombles

Re:REBOL is the Choice !

[DragonWriter]

REBOL is the best language ever (feel free to flame me)

REBOL is an interesting language, but I can't see much to recommend it over dynamic languages with open-source implementations, like Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.; its non-free (both in the "speech" and, for any but the most basic versions, "beer") nature has really limited adoption and resources compared to the competition.

Be careful about php.net

[AlexMax2742]

I wouldn't trust php.net too much. Although the docs themselves are nice, one thing they don't cover is best practices, which is vital for a language with as much older cruft from times gone by as has PHP.

Worse, the comments section frequently features insecure or non-edge-cased code, which will inevitably find its way into some enterprise system and result in a cock-up of epic proportions.

You can find pretty much everything here

[AlphaZeta]

I found http://www.freecomputerbooks.com/ the most useful. It aggregates information from a lot of sites. And has pretty much tutorials/references for all the languages (C, C++, C#, Shell Script, PASCAL, PHP...).

w3school is best for web based stuff

[hesaigo999ca]

CSS,HTML,ASP,PHP etc... you name it the have it or getting it.
They have full working examples and very simple to understand....as for
the complex stuff they have links to much more advanced stuff they can't cover.

Programming Language?

[Anonymous Coward]

PHP is not a programming language. In fact, the only reason it's popular, is because a person with half a brain can use it to author simple web pages. The reason there is more documentation for it, is because people like you (the half-brainers) vastly outnumber smart people. If you only knew the power of your numbers...but then, you only have half a brain, so...

The ONE

[ClogHammer]

http://google.com/

For ABAP?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about ABAP? Any ideas?

Excellent replies

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been a pascal (Delphi) programmer for many years and was always thinking about getting back into C. Python sounds really interesting now, however. Excellent and very informative comments.

For microsoft based languages

[Stormcrow309]

You can't go wrong with MSDN. Heck, some of the xslt docs are better then w3cschools.

Got API

[joc1985]

http://www.gotapi.com The best source ever!

Examples for many languages

[meiao]

http://pleac.sourceforge.net/

REXX

[gilbertopb]

From mainframe to PC. I used this language a lot: IBM REXX: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rexx/ The Rexx Language Association: http://www.rexxla.org/ Regina Rexx Interpreter: http://regina-rexx.sourceforge.net/

Re:Tcl -- don't miss the wiki, it's full of stars

[the_womble]

Not everything is best looked up on the site. I use the man pages first, then the wiki for detail, or if it is not obvious what man page I should look at.

The documentation is also online at http://tcl.activestate.com/man/tcl8.5/ if you want it on the net.

Can't beat php.net

[Anonymous Coward]

php.net is one of the reasons I'm still using php. I wish Ruby or javascript or any other doc site would use the php.net as anexample.

DIE.NET

[Funk_dat69]

I use www.die.net for my linux/C ref needs.

For the J programming language

[DavidHumus]

The wiki at http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki is a very good resource and getting better as more people contribute.

GLSL

[Albert Sandberg]

GLSL quick reference is pretty much all you need printed on your desk when writing vertex/pixel shaders :-)

For javascript and browser compatibility

[I cant believe its n]

Peter Paul Koch's excellent quirksmode.org

For Python

[MrBlic]

My first reference for python is:
    http://rgruet.free.fr/PQR25/PQR2.5.html

I wish there was something as complete and helpful for AS3... please let me know if you come across one.

Common Lisp

[ari_j]

For the language: Common Lisp HyperSpec. Every language should have one.

For things not part of the ANSI standard: Cliki. A wiki with everything from utility libraries to suggested projects to benefit the community.

I pity the fool who doesn't use this Python page

[jdawson]

This Python page is the best language reference page I've ever seen. And it's not just a quick reference. Once you have a vague familiarity with Python, or possibly even just a familiarity with scripting languages, this page is the fastest way to learn the bulk of the language and its libraries.

The only other language reference I've seen that comes close is the VisiBone JavaScript+DOM reference cards. It defines Javascript and its browser environment (DOM) in well-thought-out JavaScript snippets. But as far as I'm aware, you have to buy them in glossy spiral-bound cards; you can't just view them for free on the web.

bash

[Anonymous Coward]

Advanced Bash-Scripting Guide - http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/index.html

For ruby

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the best reference, but damn entertaining. Even includes a soundtrack.

Why's poignant guide to ruby

Paul B

[Anonymous Coward]

W3SCHOOLS.COM is a good site for references on web related languages.

Lisp

[Anonymous Coward]

Common Lisp:

http://common-lisp.net/
http://wiki.alu.org/
http://planet.lisp.org/

Scheme:

http://www.schemers.org/
http://www.scheme.dk/planet/

Google Doctype

[Supergibbs]

For html, css and javascript Google has a great reference. Shows compatibility for 8 browsers. http://code.google.com/docreader/#p=doctype&s=doctype&t=Welcome

ASP

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed no one mentioned any references for ASP. Are there any good ones out there?

HTML Goodies

[MilesAttacca]

htmlgoodies.com is where I started out in web coding. The beginners HTML tutorials do a great job of explaining every step of the way. The site is a lot more cluttered by ads and whatnot than it used to be, but the spirit is still there.

Re:Cookbook site

[oldhack]

I have to hand it to slashdot moderation. Damn, I gotta build up karma again. :-)

PDF Reflow

[fwr]

That would be informative if it were actually true.

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Reader/8.0/help.html?content=WS58a04a822e3e50102bd615109794195ff-7d19.html

This may be useful for you:

http://www.pdfcropper.com/

This is all readily available via a Google search.

Ada

[FBSoftware]

For Ada, I like WikiBooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada

Also useful
http://www.adaic.org/
http://www.sigada.org/
http://www.adacore.com/
http://www.sparkada.com/
https://libre.adacore.com/ (free GPL'd Ada 2005 compiler)

APL is Fun!

[AliasMarlowe]

APL! Now sing along with me:
rho rho rho of X
always equals one
rho is dimension
rho rho rank
APL is fun!

Learn the exciting APL character set, curiously reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphics or paleolithic cave scratchings. Implement an algorithm in one sexy line of APL instead of hundreds of frigid lines of C or pascal or python or other languages for geldings. http://catpad.net/michael/apl/

No comments are ever needed or provided in APL, since if you don't understand the code just by looking at it, no amount of commenting will help. Philistines incapable of conceptualizing an operator which operates on operators unfairly term it a write-only language. Perhaps for them, it is.

DEC FOCAL

[AliasMarlowe]

Yay! Another eccentric language from the past that I'd like to hear from. FOCAL was a bit like Fortran or Basic in its statements. However, line numbering was significant and implied program structure, so that every routine could also be treated as a collection of nested subroutines by cunning line numbering. http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/pdp8/focal/ brings back memories of bootstrapping a PDP-8 (many toggle switches and muttered incantations).

Ocaml

[mitch_feaster]

API: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/index.html
Tutorial (and excellent reference in general): http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/

Best Slashdot article ever!

[snadrus]

Thanks for remembering that programmers visit here. Stuff that matters, seriously.

cetus-links

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cetus-links.org/

why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it is because Java, Perl, and asp have official dead tree documentation and the web sites cannot do a proper job of documentation for fear of copyright issues.

effbot.org

[felixhummel]

Very good articles on Python:
http://effbot.org/

All +5 moderated links

[soul_on_fire2001]

http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language)
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/
http://srfi.schemers.org/
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
http://www.quickref.org/
http://java.sun.com/javase/reference/api.jsp
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.stackoverflow.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://yutaka.is-a-geek.net/
http://www.gotapi.com/
http://www.open-rsc.org/
http://www.users.bigpond.com/robin_v/resource.htm
http://www.geocities.com/orion_blastar/contact/
http://en.wikibooks.org/

Memories of Forth

[PhotoGuy]

I feel the same way about Forth... (I wonder if we were dating her at the same time?)

Some of the cool things I remember:

The version I used (the standard one, I think) came as a little bit of assembly for the core interpreter (which basically just reads an address, and calls it; reads and address, and calls it, etc...) and the rest was written in Forth itself. The interpreter/environment more or less was built on itself.

In the days when floppies were the standard, it used a fairly direct mapping between 1k blocks on the disk, and 64x16 screens. You'd write your forth more or less free-form (formatted how you want) on that 64x16 page, and it would be written directly as a disk block. If you used the word '-->' (just another forth defined word) it would load and execute the next consecutive disk block. Fairly elegant.

Because it's basically a stack based language of calls, it was fast to compile, fast to run, even on the 1mhz machines of the day.

The stack-ed-ness of it did lead to the code seeming a bit cryptic (moreso than Postscript, say). But the preferred style was to break things into fairly small "words" that you pulled together in other words; divide and conquer...

The old > keywords were neat constructs, too. One chunk told a word how to allocate memory, and the other chunk told how to perform operations on that memory at runtime. Clunky in today's world of automated garbage collection, but in its day, it was elegant and very fast.

I checked in on Forth a decode or so ago, and it seemed to have gotten away from its elegant roots a bit, and was a bit more fragmented. I believe it was popular with the robot crowd (people making them, not the robots themselves :), although in these days of dirt cheap ARM chips and the like, it's hard to imagine they would need the efficiency of Forth.

I think a big part of its charm is much like the interpreted/byte-coded languages that are so popular now. You could build things incrementally. And compiling/interpreting forth was so trivial. Nowadays, with great compilers for higher level languages and blinding fast interpreters/jits, the ease of Forth's compilation isn't that much of a differentiator, nor is its efficient interpretation.

These days I'm sticking with Python/Django, which has a lot of appeal. But there's a certain charm about Forth that I'll never forget.

Re:Memories of Forth

[PhotoGuy]

Oh, how could I forget... Forth did find a home as a powerful and efficient firmware language in OpenFirmware

4guysfromrolla.com is solid for .NET

[Anonymous Coward]

4guysfromrolla.com is solid for .NET

Excellent Post

[AttillaTheNun]

Mod points to the poster - such a simple question, but an excellent one for this forum.

Next question - where is the best location to maintain the compiled results? In the meantime, I'm bookmarking this discussion.

Re:Excellent Post

[evil_aar0n]

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Re:Excellent Post

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what i thought. ive started collating all languages/sites and use the google search api, here- www.codeindex.co.uk

Collection of Python texts

[castacoldeye]

http://thehazeltree.org/

in the .net world

[wozza96]

for c# and vb.net, you can't beat msdn

Freberg?

[HiggsBison]

*geese*

"Honk a little softer, man, you're attracting geese!"
--from "Wide Screen Mama Blues" by Stan Freberg

HTML and CSS

[Anonymous Coward]

The mysteriously named Bloobery sites have been a godsend for the past several years as an html/css reference. It comprehensively notes the browser-support differences and behaviorial oddities for particular tags or style elements. It's gotten a little outdated, but that was a lot of work for, apparently, one person. I think the link I gave is a mirror, so careful if you press on 'donate'.

Hell Yeah PHP.NET!

[Anonymous Coward]

PHP.NET is the place. Theres everything there.

I'm going to learn Java and C++ next. So I'll definitely check out Quickref or cplusplus.com

Ruby and Rails

[Anonymous Coward]

RubyBrain and RailsBrain are impressive, though a little slow, API references for ruby/rails. They also appear to be downloadable.

Haskell

[Anonymous Coward]

Haskell for everyone's favorite lazy functional language.

Clarion?

[mdjohnst]

I don't know if anyone else has encountered this language, it's basically a database language that I have to do some work on shortly, however I have been unable to find a reference for it! If anyone does know of one please let me know :) It's the obscure licensed languages that are the killer - they don't like explaining the language.

el el

[Anonymous Coward]

Often, if you're programming Java or Python, there's no need to use on-line reference. IDEs provide you with all the documentation you need. Extracted from JavaDocs or __doc__ strings in Python. You have "code intelligence" or whatever. There are some IDEs that intent reproduce same for PHP, but it's rather limited.

Delphi

[stanko]

Best programming language ever :) http://www.codegear.com/

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

For Python its obviously Python.org. For C++, the book Thinking in C++ is good. Sometimes you just want to talk to a friendly human, and thescripts.net is good for that.