QuoteAs to whether the best way to mastrering other languages is by learning C first - I very much doubt that (everybody's brain is wired differently of course). Clearly if you already know C, it won't hurt you - but the time required to learn it, instead of just starting with C++, might not be worth it.I disagree. Actually, starting with C is a very logical and useful basis. Quoteand if someone wants to get closer to the metal than C++, why not learn assembler or verilog instead of C.lol!QuoteAnd the 'know C -> know any language' statement is just not true - in fact C is quite a quirky language with a quirky syntax (though not as quirky as C++ ). What's your point? Every language is quirky in one way or another. Lisp is quirky. R is quirky. Java and C# are probably the least obviously "quirky", but they still have enough non-syntactical quirks to trip up even experienced programmers, so saying "quirky language with a quirky syntax" is just meaningless rubbish. And no, I'm not a C programmer.QuoteWhat about Lisp, OCaml, Verilog though? While I haven't done actual work in any of them yet, I know enough about them to be quite sure that they are not, at all, like C. And even the dynamically typed languages such as python are quite different.In C and C++, at least half of the actual code is mindless wiring (headers, declarations, manual memory management, casts, crap like that) that is completely unnecessary in other languages. If speed is crucial, that hassle is often worth it - but start with C as a basis? I'm not so sure.I get the impression you may not be from a CS/programming background, so I guess I can enumerate the benefits I experienced from learning C first: an intuitive appreciation of the type of memory issues that trip up inexperienced C++ coders; a rather *simple* and *limited* syntax; an appreciation of the issues involved in portability, and the kind of deeper appreciation that comes from working without shiny IDEs. YMMV.