Sure it's clever but adding language features just to say "look what I wrote, it's clever is no excuse for building a language that's become a train wreck. Act

Sure it's clever but adding language features just to say "look what I wrote, it's clever is no excuse for building a language that's become a train wreck. Actually, the rationale behind the language features you're criticizing is that people in the real world were already using some techniques in C++ in a needlessly complex and convoluted way, and these new additions not only simplify these implementations but also allow the compilers to output helpful, user-friendlier messages. Take concepts, for example. You may not like template metaprogramming, but like it or not they are used extensively in the real-world, in the very least in the form of STL and Eigen. Template metaprogramming is a central feature of C++ consumed by practically each and every single C++ developer, in spite of rarely producing code them. Does it make any sense at all to criticize work to improve a key feature that benefits each and every C++ programmer, in spite of not having to write code with it? And no one of sane mind would argue in favour of shoehorning #include and #ifndef/#define in detriment to a proper module system. Just because you aren't familiar or well-versed with some C++ features, or aware of how extensively they are used, it doesn't mean they are not used or that the stuff you don't know automatically qualifies as a trainwreck.