Half-broken, bolted-on garbage that is found in a much nicer form in high level languages which have those things in their core vision from the beginning, or the kind of extensibility which can cleanly support new ideas.
You think rvalue references are a natural and elegant construct? That if C++ were designed with move semantics in mind, this is the road they would have travelled down?
That's the biggest reason that I like Rust more than C++, even more than lifetime/safety. I've been working on a C++14 application, and "std::move" shows up a lot more than implicit copies, which not only makes the code more verbose, but analyzing performance more difficult. (I so wish I could be using Rust, but, unfortunately, the only FOSS DNP3 implementation is in C++.)
Please show me the "nice" and "well thought" and "elegant" and "modern" language with the sheer amount of resources, documentation and momentum that C++ has? It's not going to go away for the foreseeable future, even if slightly better options arise (notice the slightly, no language has substantially improved on C++ in a meaningful enough way to make the benefits of migrating greater than the headaches).
> And I'm not even getting into C++17.
I'm with you there, in a way.