Imho, C++ should be thought of as a new language with a degree of backward compatibility with old C code, not as a 'bigger C'. How I'd start: Lesson 1: Po

Imho, C++ should be thought of as a new language with a degree of backward compatibility with old C code, not as a 'bigger C'. How I'd start: Lesson 1: Pointers don't exist in C++, we have references. Lesson 2: malloc() doesn't exist in C++ Lesson 3: Templates are awesome. Lesson 4: Smart pointers are awesome. Lesson 5: 'Structs' can have constructors, and they're awesome! Lesson 5.5: Exceptions are awesome! Lesson 6: 'Structs' can have copy constructors and assignment operators, but the default ones do exactly what you'd expect so you shouldn't have to write them often. Lesson 7: OK, OK... pointers still exist in C++ but smart pointers and references make them almost deprecated, right? Lesson 8: ...oh, and if you use raw C pointers you need to do all this extra donkey work when it comes to handling exceptions, and write a lot more of those pesky copy and move constructors and assignment operators I told you you didn't need to write. Example: writing a smart pointer (with C pointers!) Lesson 9: Implementing a safe, dynamic, exception-safe array in C++ using templates and C pointers. Lesson 10: back to sanity, the ease of using <vector> (or the output of lesson 9) in every day code. Introduction to the STL, <string>, etc. ...and so on. The idea is to first teach the common C++ way, and then teach the penalty of ignoring it and going the C way, and then the places where you need to pay that penalty. Imho teaching inheritance or virtual functions early is also a bad sign. I'd go with public/private access control first (leaving protected), then member functions, then pure virtual member functions and basic inheritance, all the while presenting no hint of Circles and Ellipses, just interfaces.