81–83 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read K&R when I was 15. It was definitely good enough. Platform specific books also helped a ton. I was into the Amiga at the time - '90 or '91 or so - and you really needed extra info to do anything interesting.
Sassenrath was not a Posix guy, for sure. But the Amiga was not a common platform.
I leaned C from the Borland book that came with Turbo-C. A masterpiece of clarity and conciseness. I found K&R too low-level. I don't really want to know how they implemented strcpy().
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is C11 a plus though? It has features strongly diverging from C++ (e.g. struct initializers), and may only add confusion.
The languages, idioms, and ecosystems are different enough that I don't see that as a problem. They should be treated like two different languages. You wouldn't read a C book and expect to understand the conventions of C#. Neither should you for C++.
If you don't plan to learn C++ later, okay, do use a modern version, but if this is a possibility, better start either in completely different language with more clear semantics (pascal was great, maybe some Go or Rust are good now), or the pure subset, which wouldn't add to later confusion but would allow to use more advanced abstractions as needed.
From my experience teaching software engineering to high school students which already passes their algorithms & programming courses, small differences in practices and/or semantics (svn commit vs git commit) is what kills learning progress.