Ha!

More like a book by someone who fell for his tall tales!

So why is it that an editor would let these statements pass.

If, say, the publisher was Addison-Wesley or Prentice Hall, would they make it into print.

I am sure that this is not the only programming book that made it to publication with a lack of meaningful editorial oversight.

The worst part is the forward of the second edition says that the publisher hired a C programmer to review the book. That reviewer said "this book should not be published". They published it anyway!

I just downloaded a free sample of the Kindle edition. Here's an excerpt from the preface:

"Prior to publication of the first edition, the manuscript was reviewed by a professional C programmer hired by the publisher. This individual expressed a firm opinion that the book should not be published because “it offers nothing new -- nothing the C programmer cannot obtain from the documentation provided with C compilers by the software companies.”"

The author's claim is that there was a pressing need for a book that just explains C pointers rather than covering the whole language. (It would be interesting to see the rest of what the reviewer wrote.)

And that's how we get flat-earthers.

There is a line between crackpotness and groundbreakness which sometimes is not visible even for deep experts in the subject (though to be fair most of the time you only need high-school science to debunk most stuff).

The reviewer should have been more explicit "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" rather than "don't publish this book"

It sounds like a scam ad that tries to make it sound like they are revealing a well guarded secret.

"Professional C programmers hate him! A BASIC programmer discovers a clever way to use pointers..."