While the C++ language is indeed a superset of the C language, the paradigms of modern C++ have almost no overlap with those of C. See for example the string qsort vs string std::sort elsewhere in this thread.

The myth in "To understand C++, you must first learn C" is not that C and C++ are unrelated. The myth is that learning C helps you understand C++. The reality is that telling people to learn C first is an excellent way of getting them to write really bad C++ when they switch over to C++11.

I'd argue that UB is an evil enough concept in C that still exists and is expanded on in C++ that should be known by every programmer. Sure, paradigm differences mean that idiomatic C code is not idiomatic C++ code, but knowing the pitfalls of the language should be mandatory, imho.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'easily' - you can provide custom allocator s fairly easily. What's more problematic are things like the memory usage patterns of std::vector and std::string. Once you know how they work you can avoid the pitfalls or use custom alternatives.

Things like alignment support didn't come out in g++ until 4.8 [1] but now you could start actually do most of what the EASTL is doing aside from the access to private members

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

Actually, I've found that it's even undesirable to know C, because programmers, that came from C to C++, usually try to do everything in "C way" that leads to the code is "C with objects". To really learn modern C++, one must "forget" C and start with basic concepts.

There's an example in Part 1, where string concatenation is used as an example. C++ requires "adding" two string objects and C requires manipulating char pointers. And thus, C++ is a better teaching programming language.

Although true, I feel this argument is rather weak: it's true, that when teaching I wouldn't want to start with pointers and malloc's from the get go, but it does not mean C++ is the only alternative.

If you're teaching programming, don't teach C++.

If you're teaching systems programming, don't hide pointers. In this case, knowing the addition operator is useful iff they understand the underlying operations.... chances are, if they're learning C++, they don't.

I completely agree.

It's difficult to find a place for C++ in my little projects, given that I can use C for low level stuff and Python or Lua for high level stuff.

Then don't use C++. There's a tool for every need. I wouldn't use C++ either if there was an option for cross-platform, high performance, non-garbage collected way to program highly interactive VR -applications. There simply isn't, so I must use C++ and learn it.

But got to say, my experiences with learning C++11 has changed how I view C++, it's much more robust and nice environment than what I thought, the new C++11 and C++14 really bring some nice things to the table.

I agree, that C++11 is an improvement. I was actually quite excited when Stroustrup's updated book on the subject came out. But like I said, I still can't find a fit for C++ in any of my projects. My use cases however are far different from yours, so I'm naturally opinionated away from C++.

Not as true any more. Are you familiar with value categories in C++11?