Recently I was thinking back on my days of trying to learn C++ by reading the Usenet groups comp.lang.c++.moderated and comp.std.c++. If someone asks me the best source to learn C++ from, I would always refer to these two places (and perhaps the Boost mailing list even though it is a little more Boost-focussed). Note that I said the best source to "learn" C++ - not merely "read" it (for which here are the books).
I'll explain what I mean by that (and as usual, I'll get a bit philosophical before cutting to the chase). I read C++ on my own, almost every written word of it that I read, alone - not a soul around even to discuss, not a teacher around to cast an impression. And yet no learning is complete unless an impression of that knowledge has been cast on us - this is true for every field of learning - even learning to memorize the English alphabet. The reason must be that this impression is cast on us through multiple senses - sight and sound, if not more. On the other hand, reading a tome is one dimensional - sight. It is here that the Usenet discussion boards and other mailing lists step in. While you still only read, you read direct discussions, arguments, brain-storms, doubts, misgivings, biases - it is a lot more real than reading a chapter on C++ polymorphism. It is what eggs you on to introspect - identify with the views expressed, or refute them; in other words, your C++ perspective is built here and that is what I meant when I said "learning".
Usenet in particular provided this motivation - I have seen posts by Bjarne Stroustrup, Scott Meyers, Andrei Alexandrescu, Herb Sutter, Jim Coplien, Steve Dewhurst, Andrew König, you name one, I'd have read his posts. The debates would go on for days together, even weeks, in lists that grew deep and wide with time. I was a mere reader - my occasional two-pence in the middle of debates would be politely answered but I had not the knowledge or understanding of the language to make a serious impact. Half the time, I groped through the standard or Stroustrup's book trying to figure out what is a "temporary" or where are "incomplete types" allowed, what is the meaning of "SFINAE" or what is the "Liskov Substitution Principle". You could be excused for wondering "Is this a programming language we are reading or a Theory of Banach algebras?". I certainly did - but it was part of C++'s charm (oh! geek) - for a wannabe-mathematician-turned-nobody, this was a nice feel-good aberration in a language I wanted to "speak". But coming back to the point - this meant I had to have a basic vocabulary ready, and a familiarity with a C++ alphabet soup before I could start communicating effectively in real C++ terms. C++ is tough and exacting, it requires discipline and knowledge - and it was not defined by a Sun or a Microsoft. I plan to put up a set of articles that would help build the awareness and concepts around the C++ jargons. Happy reading!