bumps cause im skrubbles

this board doesnt get many posts huh?

>>141
There is a similar thread over at /code/.

Learn Python first

Then C

Then whateveryawanna

Learn Delphi first, then move on to C++

>>156
>I want to learn spanish
>Learn latin first
>why?
>Because derpa derp

You can learn C++ without studying C first.

>>175
>Dat idiotic sentence
YOU WILL LEARN C IS YOU LEARN C++, C++ BEING A SUPERSET OF C.MORONS, L2PROGRAM BITCHES.

>>187
Some things are different in C than C++ so that statement is like 95% accurate. Just take memory allocation with malloc, in C you do not need to cast (void *) to anything in C++ you do. Minute things like that.

C++ should be easier to learn than C, and Java or C# is easier to learn than Java.

>>201

>Some things are different in C than C++ so that statement is like 95% accurate.

C++ is not a superset of C, so what is true for one is not always true for the other. When Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++ invented the language he made sure to make it as close to C as possible because C was the dominant language at the time. This was so programmers could more easily jump from one to the other. Nevertheless, he broke away from some things that C did because he felt it wasn't appropriate to C++. The void* casting issue is one of them. Most of them amount to subtle differences. See here:

http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#C-is-subset
The above is Bjarne Stroustrup's own FAQ on C++ and C

>C++ should be easier to learn than C
This is not true. C is much simpler than C++ which was created in part to get C programmers used to object oriented programming. C has no object oriented facilities, does not deal with templates, generics, etc. For reference, the book "The C Programming Language, 2nd Edition" is listed as 274 pages on Amazon.com. "The C++ Programming Language, 3rd Edition" is listed at 1040 pages. Bjarne Stroustrup has this to say about the increase in complexity:

>..the days where a novice programmer can know all of a language are gone, at least for the languages in widespread industrial use. Few people know "all of C" or "all of Java" .. What you must do - in any language - is to pick a subset, get working writing code, and gradually learn more of the language
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#big

The "pick a subset" part has the biggest complaints because people pick a subset of C++ then hand their code off to someone else who might know a different subset. Google actually published documents defining the subset of C++ they're willing to accept for people contributing C++ code to their projects.

So C++ is definitely more complex and probably harder to learn than C.

>>202
Fine, c++ is not a superset of c. As Stroustrup said:
>In the strict mathematical sense, C isn't a subset of C++

Considering things like the void* cast is simply not realistic for giving learning advice. Plus, you tend not to use malloc in C++. new and new[] are there for that. If you do know how to program in C, C++ will be a lot easier to learn. This is what I mean, and this is what Stroustrup means.
>It is not uncommon to be able to convert tens of thousands of lines of ANSI C to C-style C++ in a few hours. Thus, C++ is as much a superset of ANSI C as ANSI C is a superset of K&R C and much as ISO C++ is a superset of C++ as it existed in 1985.