As for this article, it really did de-mystify those strange foo&& things for me. I had no idea that they're functionally identical to references and that what C++ does with them is left up to convention. But I still felt like I had to fight against sanity loss from a horrid realization.

I also wonder if most junior C++ programmers can shortcut a bit by just using common patterns. Articles like these I’ve always thought were geared more toward experienced programmers who are intellectually curious about the inner workings of the language.

But it has been taking the "compartmentalization" route: Once a new, nicer/safer/terser idiom to express something in code emerges, people being taught the language are directed to use that, without looking into the "compartment". Some of this compartmentalization is in the language itself, some in the standard library, and some is more in the 'wild' and programming customs.

It's true, though, that if you want to write your own library, flexibly enough for public use - or otherwise cater to whatever any other programmer might throw at you - you do have to dive in rather deep into the arcane specifics.

There are better choices if everything is built from scratch, but changing wheels from a running car isn't easy.

Anyway C++ isn't as complicated as people say, most of the so called complexity exists for a reason, so if you understand the reasoning it tends to make logical sense.

You can also mostly just stick to the core subset of the language, and only use the more obscure stuff when it is actually needed(which isn't that often, but I'm glad it exists when I need it). And move semantics is not hard to understand IMO.

So, basically, you're just trolling us about a language you avoid using. Thanks, that's very helpful.