C/C++, which one first

[stylin]

[Simulating OO in C is] more about using techniques such as encapsulation and separating the interface from the implementation. These are widely used in object orientated languages, but are just as applicable to procedural languages.

Yes, I agree. But as you imply below, the needs of the situation dictate the practicality - therefore the applicability - of those techniques. That is, in practice, those methods aren't as universal as they seem, and their use as an aid in learning a language is questionable.

[programmers] should be capable of picking up the documentation and transfering over.

Of course they should, but is it wise to recommend techniques which obfuscate what the language was intended for (I'm talking specifically about OO in C)? IMO, when you're learning a language you should at least learn how to use it properly, if not effectively. In any case, I don't think the ability to go beyond what a language is inteded to do should be a 'pro' of whether or not it's a better learning tool.

neuro: Yeah, strings and dynamic arrays in general are good examples. You can pack a large amount of power in an intuitive, and potentially worry-free package.