Andrea Griffini wrote: > Indeed when talking about if learning "C" can hinder > or help learning "C++" I remember thinking that to > learn "C++" *superficially* learning "C" first is > surely pointless or can even hinder. > But to learn "C++" deeply (with all its quirks) I > think that learning "C" first helps.
I think you are mistakingly bringing order into the picture, when extent is more likely the case. If you want to master C++, I think that most would agree you need to understand C. But there are many who would disagree that the path to C++ must *start* at C. (In fact, many people argue that a lot of bad C++ is due to people programming C in C++.) Instead they would argue that you should start by learning C++ "superficially", then learn C, and re-evaluate you C++ practices in light of the lessons learned from C. The example I'll pull out is natural languages - I understood the grammar & construction of my native tounge *much* better after learning a foreign language. From people I've talked to, this is a common occurance. But there would be few people who would advocate that one should learn a foreign language before learning one's native tounge. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
