Most of the C stuff here is pretty good, but some of the C++ information is a little questionable. Even the "good programmer" exhibits a few common misconceptions about inheritance and virtual destructors. Here's the text from slide 348:

"What is the point of having a virtual destructor on a class like this? There are no virtual functions so it does not make sense to inherit from it. I know that there are programmers who do inherit from non-virtual classes, but I suspect they have misunderstood a key concept of object orientation. I suggest you remove the virtual specifier from the destructor, it indicates that the class is designed to be used as a base class - while it obviously is not."

She's right that the class described on the slide probably shouldn't have a virtual destructor.

A base class should have a virtual destructor if and only if objects of its derived class are to be deleted through base class pointers.

The following four statements are wrong:

1. A class with other virtual functions should have a virtual destructor.

2. A class without other virtual functions should not have a virtual destructor.

3. A class designed to be a base class should have a virtual destructor.

4. You shouldn't inherit from classes that don't have virtual functions.

It's a narrow-minded to say that programmers who inherit from "non-virtual" classes have "misunderstood a key concept of object orientation." Which key concept is that, by the way? Object orientation isn't the be all and end all of C++. There are reasons to use inheritance that have nothing to do with run-time polymorphism. Maybe you just want to reduce redundancy and organize your data types in terms of each other.

Another gripe is that on slide 369, she says:

"When I see bald pointers in C++ it is usually a bad sign."

Naked pointers should usually be avoided for memory management. That's true. But they make great iterators, and they're useful, along with references, for passing objects to functions.

On the other hand, seeing the keywords "new" and "delete" in code is usually a bad sign. Resources (not just memory) should be managed by resource management classes. If you try to do it manually, especially in the presence of exceptions and concurrency, it's very easy to cause an inadvertent resource leak.