I really like your description, it's pretty much the same as how I think about it. But only when I'm in a subjective 'C++ all the things' mood - which happens o

I really like your description, it's pretty much the same as how I think about it. But only when I'm in a subjective 'C++ all the things' mood - which happens often, especially since C++14, there's just so much to love about C++. When I try to be objective about it though, I'd say you are glorifying too much and skipping on the darker sides of it. You and me probably now exactly how to avoid those and that's also exactly one of the reasons why for us C++ is all utter greatness. But when I see inferior, dangerous, ugly, waiting-for-UB code produced by others I realize it's not all that great. Or maybe still great - after all you could blame their lack of knowledge instead of C++ - but I really wouldn't use terms like finely tuned or extremely logcical. Seriously, I've used the language for like 10 years and it still occurs to me that I see a C++ question and corresponding answer on SO which completely baffle me because I had no clue about that particular implementation detail. There aren't many languages like that. Here's one just from today: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/39422188/difference-between-const-int-x-4-and-const-int-x-4 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/39422188/difference-betwe... granted I would never write that stuff, but also I really couldn't tell 100% sure how 'const int& x = 4;' at classlevel is supposed to behave.