Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You haven't looked at C++ lately if you think it's the same as it was in 2004." "If you're writing C++ code that is consistent with 2004 C++ then you're writing a really bad version of "C with classes", not C++." I applaud your attempt at an authoritative voice. But you focus on mostly technical trivia that are thin scaffolding on top of the language. I agree modern C++ is nice but it's the same language still. "Thi…
They sound like they're echoing the kinds of things that are normally said about C++11. > I agree modern C++ is nice but it's the same language still. Well...in the same sense that any language is the same language after you add a bunch of things to it that weren't there before and shift to using those new features as idiomatic parts of the language. I would expect C++ written in 2004 to use different patterns than C…
I would say generally C++ style has evolved through last decades with people understanding class based architecture as an antipattern and data pipelines based on preferably immutable data as the more robust and understandable approach. This has nothing to do with language standards or 'idiomatic' constructs - both can be expressed as perfectly elegant C++, using the '98 or '11 or '17 variant.
But anyway, within this context - refactoring old code - I would not expect a legacy codebase to resemble 2017 C++ as much as 1997 C++. This is the main reason I find the claim of methods to understand circa 2004 C++ to be outdated to be silly.