> I've always thought OOP was oversold and that may have something to do with it.
Almost all of the recent innovations in C++ focus on aspects other than OOP. I can't think very many new OOP languages features in C++11/14/17, except for `override` and `final`. All the new hotness is about functional programming and in some sense, generic programming, which, IMO, is the right direction.
> I just want to use the features of the language that make it easier and simpler to solve a problem more efficiently (and likewise, not use the features which don't help)... which is what programming languages ultimately are for, and yet I feel much of the "Modern C++" community has missed that point.
I feel that you are exactly the kind of person the author has described in the beginning of the article: a C++ sceptic, especially a "Modern C++" sceptic. The article even quotes Douglas Crockford in saying "some of those features were more trouble than they were worth." The article also quotes Bjarne Stroustrup saying "[w]ithin C++, there is a smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out." The "Modern C++" community that you have derided is exactly the community that knows not every feature in C++ is good, a community that tries to enshrine the tried and tested "good features" into "expert opinion" and "best practices" and then spread them through talks like this one.
Almost all of the recent innovations in C++ focus on aspects other than OOP. I can't think very many new OOP languages features in C++11/14/17, except for `override` and `final`. All the new hotness is about functional programming and in some sense, generic programming, which, IMO, is the right direction.
> I just want to use the features of the language that make it easier and simpler to solve a problem more efficiently (and likewise, not use the features which don't help)... which is what programming languages ultimately are for, and yet I feel much of the "Modern C++" community has missed that point.
I feel that you are exactly the kind of person the author has described in the beginning of the article: a C++ sceptic, especially a "Modern C++" sceptic. The article even quotes Douglas Crockford in saying "some of those features were more trouble than they were worth." The article also quotes Bjarne Stroustrup saying "[w]ithin C++, there is a smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out." The "Modern C++" community that you have derided is exactly the community that knows not every feature in C++ is good, a community that tries to enshrine the tried and tested "good features" into "expert opinion" and "best practices" and then spread them through talks like this one.