The choice of literature for learning C #. How to be?

Question

.NET

Good day to all!
I started learning C# .Net platforms a couple of weeks ago. As true friends and helpers, I chose the book by Chuck Sfer and Stefan Davis "C# 2008 for Dummies". The book is read "excitedly", everything is extremely clear and understandable. After reading this book, Andrew Troelsen "C# and the .net 3.0 platform" is waiting for me. I combine each chapter I read with practice in Visual Studio 2013. My question is for experienced specialists. Is it a mistake to start learning a language on the .Net 3.0 platform when there are more "fresh" versions, or can this be neglected?

Answer 1

I will not be as categorical as @God-emperor.
For learning the basics and writing examples of console applications, the old version of the framework is also quite suitable.
Another thing is that between 3.0 and 3.5 a fairly large step occurred due to the addition of LINQ. Chips 4.0, 4.5 and 4.5.1 are also useful, but hardly at the very beginning of training.
Therefore, in the future, I would still recommend using more recent versions of books and the framework.
In general, what's new in the new versions can be found on the Internet (for example: www.dotnet-tricks.com/Tutorial/netframework/HJXU17... ) or in books (for example: Richter's CLR via C#)

Answer 2

In principle , velnick said everything correctly .
From myself I will add that it is worth paying more attention to screencasts. When the head does not cook and the letters jump, you can look. The advantage of screencasts is that you can also see how people work with the IDE and other tools. You can always find something useful.
For starters, here it is code.tutsplus.com/courses/30-days-to-learn-c
And incrementally on the same code.tutsplus.com or pluralsight.com/.
And I like Comrade Albahari's book www.amazon.com/C-5-0-Nutshell-Definitive-Reference... more than Richter's (although Richter is good). She's easier to understand.

Answer 3

Yes, it is a mistake. The .Net platform is constantly evolving and you have out-of-date information on hand. It seemed obvious to me.