Your comment strikes at a deeper issue than what I suspect most replies it gets will address. The example of your never having needed nor missed std::move in a

Your comment strikes at a deeper issue than what I suspect most replies it gets will address. The example of your never having needed nor missed std::move in all the code you've written rests on the distinction between specific uses and generality. The reason modern C++ has become what it has become (in both good and bad senses) is because template generic programming has led it down a path of built-in constructs needing to consider an ever-growing zoo of weird cases. For every simple answer to the question, "how should this thing work?" there's a counter-example, "what if the type doesn't have that property?" That's where we get things like std::move, etc. By contrast when dealing with your own code you can use knowledge of what is actually going to be passed to ignore many of these concerns or change your abstraction-using code to have or not have some property. Overall, simplifying the use-case or restricting the domain is more pragmatic than making things fully general. C++, in its standard library / template utility headers is painted into a corner in that respect since it doesn't control the use-case, and the effort to restrict the domain (i.e. concepts) was delayed as well as representing itself another layer of complexity rather than a pure simplification.