To be honest if you know C#, Java or ObjectiveC you already know the core 90% of C++.
The main thing left is understanding pointers vs references vs stack vs heap allocation (egthe instance.x vs instance->x difference) because C++ has those explicitly different pointer vs non-pointer intances of "instance", while C# or Java hide that difference (so if you know C# you can slightly think of it as struct vs class in C# difference since struct is copy-by-value while class is always a reference (a pointer).
Moving away from objects doesn't make sense: objects are perfectly fine and usable. It all depends on the context. Anyone who says "don't use objects" is a religous zaelot who does't see the forest for the trees anymore.
For certain extreme performance cases objects can be bad, but in ~95%+ of cases objects are perfectly fine.
We are again starting to enter "it all depends on the context" territory.
IMO C++ got some very bad rep for no reason at all: it got mythologized into a "very difficult arcane language that people makes meme about".
So because of this people think C++ is some boogey man, while it's really not.
Unless you are making life-critical software like avionics it honestly isn't much more difficult than C# or Java.
Ironicaly you already understand the difference between pointer and non-pointer since you know instinctively that an "int" type is will get fully copied while in Java a class object is a reference (pointer). C++ just makes this even more explicity since YOU can decide if a class is a copy-by-value or a reference on the fly (assuming the class doesn't have complex sub-fields inside of it that require their own complex copy-by-value vs reference rules).
Also due to C++ being mythologized as an "super difficult language" you get some extra XP on resumes if you state that you know it.
The main thing left is understanding pointers vs references vs stack vs heap allocation (egthe instance.x vs instance->x difference) because C++ has those explicitly different pointer vs non-pointer intances of "instance", while C# or Java hide that difference (so if you know C# you can slightly think of it as struct vs class in C# difference since struct is copy-by-value while class is always a reference (a pointer).
Moving away from objects doesn't make sense: objects are perfectly fine and usable. It all depends on the context. Anyone who says "don't use objects" is a religous zaelot who does't see the forest for the trees anymore. For certain extreme performance cases objects can be bad, but in ~95%+ of cases objects are perfectly fine. We are again starting to enter "it all depends on the context" territory.
IMO C++ got some very bad rep for no reason at all: it got mythologized into a "very difficult arcane language that people makes meme about". So because of this people think C++ is some boogey man, while it's really not. Unless you are making life-critical software like avionics it honestly isn't much more difficult than C# or Java.
Ironicaly you already understand the difference between pointer and non-pointer since you know instinctively that an "int" type is will get fully copied while in Java a class object is a reference (pointer). C++ just makes this even more explicity since YOU can decide if a class is a copy-by-value or a reference on the fly (assuming the class doesn't have complex sub-fields inside of it that require their own complex copy-by-value vs reference rules).
Also due to C++ being mythologized as an "super difficult language" you get some extra XP on resumes if you state that you know it.