> If OP eventually writes C code that goes into production for a company, it is the company's responsibility to have procedures and safeguards which ensure that OP writes reasonable code. Ideally, one such safeguard will be a senior colleague to introduce them to the thornier parts of C.
You've mentioned something like this in reply to a few comments in here. This is a strange argument. It isn't too much to ask of a book to lay down more of a foundation so you don't need a 1 on 1 tutor later to correct misconceptions.
I get people like K&R because it is short and easy to read. Some subjects aren't best served by short and easy to read. The subject was well served by it when C was new and novel. We live in a very different world.
You don't actually seem to be addressing the quoted text... but I can reply to your arguments.
Sure, it would be ideal if there were a new book on C which did a better job of explaining some of the developments since K&R 2ed was written. If that book exists, I'm not aware of it. All of the books I've seen recommended are either too long, or poorly written. K&R's strong advantage isn't that it's short, it's that it's very strong pedagogically.
A "how do I learn C?" thread comes up on HN about once a month. In each of these threads, people will steer people clear of K&R, quoting something or another about how K&R isn't appropriate for this day and age (note: you do not explain why you think it isn't appropriate!). The tacit assumption here is that you can only read one book, or that if you read a book which isn't "perfect", you are somehow tainting yourself with corrupted knowledge. I think this is nonsense. An important meta-skill for learning is the ability to discern between good and bad information. The only way to build that skill is by consulting multiple sources.
Note that in my actual reply to OP, I don't specifically advocate for reading K&R, but instead to take a multipronged approach where you primarily draw from whatever learning medium you're most comfortable with. Most people I know that are in their early 20s or younger prefer learning from videos (I'm a math teacher and have lots of experience with people this age).
I think you've got a bit of a strawman in your head. Look back up at some of my comments you are replying to, namely the top one in this chain. A friend describes this as "violent agreement." I agree that it can be best to have a multipronged approach. That's why I said "It's a good technical book. A great one for it's time and subject matter. But that caveat is important, it needs to be taken in context of the time. It shouldn't be the first, and absolutely not the only, book you read if you are writing modern production C in 2023." I also address its short comings in that post.
You've mentioned something like this in reply to a few comments in here. This is a strange argument. It isn't too much to ask of a book to lay down more of a foundation so you don't need a 1 on 1 tutor later to correct misconceptions.
I get people like K&R because it is short and easy to read. Some subjects aren't best served by short and easy to read. The subject was well served by it when C was new and novel. We live in a very different world.