I think the utility is strongly dependent on the kind of code you write and the sophistication of the metaprogramming your code will benefit from. Many C++ prog

I think the utility is strongly dependent on the kind of code you write and the sophistication of the metaprogramming your code will benefit from. Many C++ programmers made similar comments when it was introduced with C++11 and a few still maintain it has no real use case. However, for C++ library writers it was a game changer. In practice, they replace a lot of use cases for code generators. It took me a while to get into variadic generics, but now that I understand them I would feel crippled using a language without them. A lot of the value is to derive complex structs programmatically that may never be realized concretely but feed other metaprogramming algorithms that slice and dice them and make decisions based on the properties of the individual types. You don’t want to name them because (1) there may be hundreds from an unbounded set and (2) your may never need to reference them directly, so it saves a mountain of code and eliminates a massive amount of edge cases. At their best, you can use them to express insanely complex things with surprisingly little code. It is not the kind of feature you use profligately in a code base. But when you need them, you really need them. Most of what they can express in ordinary code would otherwise require complex code generators, compiler magic, or outrageous amounts of boilerplate.