Or landing by parachute on a codebase that needs some work.
Or just having to integrate a C++ library done by other team into their managed language framework.
Ridiculous is how many in ISO C++ seem to ignore Bjarne's plea to not overcomplicate the language.
I pointed out that your criticisms are a huge stretch in reality and instead of confronting that, you decided to ignore what I said and throw more out there that isn't even a part of C++.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Boost is mostly terrible and isn't hard to avoid. People don't need to use it and they don't need to debug it. This is far removed from talking about the language itself.
Should we go through the ISO C++ features that were born in Boost?
Ironically there are probably an endless streams of criticisms that could be lobbed at it, but everything you've mentioned are things that just aren't problems in practice.
These are advanced template techniques for people who want to dive deep into writing template libraries that are as generic as possible. Insinuating that they are a necessity to learn is ridiculous.
decltype is easy and only necessary when trying to make something more generic.
> guaranteed RVO
Also something that programmers don't even need to know exists unless they want to dig into it.