Even following the guidelines, modern C++ is just a huge pile of half-finished ideas. It goes pretty well for the first few hundred lines of code, and then you hit a very basic problem where the solution is "yes this will work great in C++26, if the proposal doesn't get delayed again".
Even following the guidelines, modern C++ is just a huge pile of half-finished ideas.
You're making it pretty clear that you are completely oblivious to what C++ is, what are the differences between C++ versions, and what are the real world issues solved by each new version.
I would ask you to clarify your persona clams by providing a concrete example to back each of your statements, but I know you have none.
Lol okay. Here are some concrete examples I don't have:
Templates as basic generics
Templates still show bizarre error messages far too deep into instantiation, despite at least three major features which provided opportunities to fix the problem (static_assert, type_traits, and then concepts)
Templates for metaprogramming
33 years after the introduction of templates, there are still many common cases in which the only good way to abstract a pattern is by using a macro, and many cases that neither macros or templates can solve
There is finally an accepted proposal to fix part of the problem, which will be introduced in C++26, and probably not usable in real code until 2030 at the earliest
In 2035, people will still be reluctantly using string macros and external code generation to solve basic problems in C++
Safe union types
C++17, std::variant was introduced to provide a safe inline union type
The main API for accessing it is inexplicably slow, unlike in every competing language
The fast alternative is an eyesore that can't integrate with switch statements except via weird, unmaintainable hacks
Everyone keeps using custom struct/union/enum combos instead
CVEs everywhere
Error handling
C++ uses exceptions as the primary error handling mechanism
Exceptions are so slow and so riddled with problems that some companies ban them, and almost all consider them bad practice for representing common failure paths (e.g. failing to parse something)
std::expected eventually approved, similar to Rust's Result type, but with no equivalent to the '?' operator to make the code readable
Now there is a proposal to introduce "value type exceptions" instead, which is gathering momentum before std::expected has even stabilised, but will probably not be available for 10 years
Subtype polymorphism deprecated
Now that virtual methods and inheritance are widely considered tools of last resort, they obstruct the introduction of better alternatives
Instead we have widespread use of specialised template structs and CRTP to replace instance inheritance with a kind of static inheritance designed for templates
It's all a hack, and as a result it's full of edge cases that don't work very well, and poor tool support
References
Good C++ programmers use references where possible, because pointers can be null
Good C++ programmers avoid unnecessary copies and allocations
Good C++ programmers avoid patterns that can permit unintended coercions with no error
Oh no, I accidentally assigned a reference to an auto variable in a template, and instead of giving a helpful type error it implicitly coerced a new copy of my vast memory buffer into existence
Okay fine I'll pass pointers to avoid this, and just trust they won't be null
Oh no, C++ has standardised the idea that raw pointers represent nullability even in all their newest standard library types (thanks again, std::variant)