C++ : if constexpr isn't broken

"a somewhat more awkward and uglier, yet slightly more correct way... all the functionality is right there. We’re not missing anything" might as well be C++'s motto :)

I used to be a C++ guy from the early 90s &#x27;till about 2010. Every few months, I think &quot;I should really learn the new C++ hotness&quot;, and then I read something like this. It&#x27;s like a bunch of priests arguing about how best to fit a bunch of ugly angels on a pointless pin. It just feels so pointless.<p>If you must use C++, just use another language to generate the C++. All this template mumbo jumbo. Who says your meta-programming language has to be the same as your target language?<p>I used to spend some time looking for the perfect vector (as in linear-algebra) library. Templatized for vector dimension, data-type, blah blah blah. Dude, just use Python to generate it. Duplication doesn&#x27;t violate DRY if the duplication is generated from a single higher-level source.<p>Doing meta-programming in C++ is a really limited way of thinking.

I had similar thoughts when looking through the slides for Andrei&#x27;s talk. A main argument in favor of static if over the mechanisms C++ offers to do the same things seems to be familiarity of if statements but having scope not be respected is such an unintuitive difference for anyone with experience in curly braces languages that it seems like a net loss in clarity to me. It looks more like using macros for conditional compilation.<p>Overuse of if statements is generally something of a code smell and tends to make code harder to follow. To my taste the C++ way of doing things is generally preferable as a result even if more verbose. Given this is probably somewhat a matter of taste it is hard to justify changing C++ to match the D way IMO.

Why is it every time I see a new article about C++ features my eyes glaze over? Am I just getting old, or has C++ jumped the shark?

Slides from Alexandrescu&#x27;s referenced talk [1].<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;erdani.com&#x2F;MeetingC++2018Keynote.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;erdani.com&#x2F;MeetingC++2018Keynote.pdf</a>

I agree with this blog writer. Allowing typedefs to cross static if boundaries would be a major change to the way I read code. Unless there&#x27;s a more substantive example demonstrating why using the existing metaprogramming is insufficient, its benefits are imo outweighed by its cost.

Oh my. If only C++ would have used proper macros from the start...

I think I just got used to C++11. What is this dark magic?