Well apparently not, because you stated multiple points that are, as of today, patently false. Perhaps it was different in C++98, but (in case you didn't know), it's not 1998 anymore.

Not as many as possible. Use the right tool for the right job, as always. But don't rule out libraries because they use templates -- that's downright silly. Templates are made for writing generic code, which maps very well to libraries. Lastly, I don't claim to be a *good* programmer, but I do at least make an effort to understand the language that I'm using.

Might I ask what you feel to be unpleasant about C++11's additions? Do you have any specific cases in mind?

A lot of people will (and do) use the =delete syntax. Prior to that you would have to declare the method as being private, but this wasn't perfect. Class friend and member functions could still access them, and the errors would only be detected at link time. Alternately you could use boost noncopyable, but you can't always use boost. With the =delete syntax, errors are detected at compile time, and provide some semantic information about your code to anyone reading it.

Also, it's actually 6 implicit functions that compilers generate; you forgot about the copy-assignment and move-assignment operators.

Sorry but this is nonsense. Templates aren't any slower than hand-written code. Compilers may have had problems with templates a decade ago, but template support among the major compilers nowadays are very solid and consistent.

You say "many programmers minimize their use of templates, both in their own code and in their use of templated library code" -- are you saying "many" programmers writing C++ don't use boost or the standard library? Because that too is nonsense. Many bad programmers perhaps?

Lastly, partial specialization is very convenient for performing compile time recursion, which is pretty essential to template metaprogramming.

You could always just return a tuple, then use tie on the caller side. To use your example,

std::tuple SinCos(float angle) {
...
return std::make_tuple(sin, cos);
}

float sin, cos;
std::tie(sin, cos) = SinCos(angle);

Also, your last question isn't really a question, is it?

The assembler? Then how do you intend to compile anything into machine code? Must be quite a project you have there

Yes, that's what the PIMPL idiom is for. Here's a nice introduction to it .

As with most everything, there's a way to solve that problem in C++, it just takes some work and knowledge to know what, when, and how to use it. I do agree that the language is too big though; conceptually, C++ could be broken into 4 distinct components (C, STL, templates, OOP), as each have their own quirks and idioms that don't necessarily carry over well to the other, and some are even Turing complete on their own (ie template metaprogramming)

I'm not quite sure I understand your gripe properly. You're saying that since C++ has classes, and classes are defined in header files, that calling code is dependent on the class because... it's in a header file?

If it bothers you so much, use the PIMPL idiom. Or forward declarations where you can. Or template your calling code and write to static interfaces. You've got plenty of options, you just need to know how to use them. C++ is admittedly a very large (arguably too large) language, which is both it's most compelling feature and it's biggest drawback. You can use it for pretty much everything, but fully grasping the language and knowing when to use what feature takes time. This is partly due to trying to maintain backward compatibility with C, while still incorporating new language features. Because of this hodgepodge, iterative development, some dubious choices have been made. D is meant to take the good parts of C++ and cut out the bad; it is a good idea, and a lot of the foremost C++ experts are D supporters. It's a shame that D will probably never take off.

If you're going to complain about C++, at least use valid complaints. Like about how 2 primary aspects of the language (templates and OOP/dynamic polymorphism) are partly incompatible, or about how there's no dynamic multi-dispatch built in to the language still, or how there's no concepts, or how C++11 async doesn't really give task parallelism. (And yes, there are others, many others). But classes and header files? Cmon.

And yes, the famous, fictional interview...

I was citing your post. You're the one who used them as an exemplar. Why are you asking me this?

I have no idea what this question is referencing

I provided no judgment or commentary about whether I agreed or not with the interview procedure or questions. My point was merely that being able to operate on the bit-level is still useful, mandatory in fact, to work at the places you cite as not needing them. YMMV

It's funny that you mention that. I've recently had to perform some interviews (as an interviewer), so I was looking around the 'net for some tips on how to be a good interviewer. Lo and behold I came across this piece by Steve Yegge, about the kind of questions he asks as an Amazon interviewer.

He lists "The Five Essential Questions" for phone interviews , one of which is, as you would say, 'bit bashing'. The full list is:

So while you might not use bit bashing after you start working for those companies, you'll never get the chance to if you don't know how.

Adds hiding? You mean... encapsulation?

Is that the only thing you can think of that C++ adds to C? If so, that may explain why you have such a poor view of C++

"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution"

– Robert Sewell

Ebola is only contagious when the symptoms are present , NOT during the incubation period. The symptoms of Ebola are pretty pronounced, so if you see someone projectile vomiting and bleeding from their eyeballs, steer clear, but otherwise you should be alright. From the WHO Ebola FAQ:

I was referring to Neymar specifically -- he got a fractured vertebrate in the game against Columbia and had to sit out the rest of the World Cup.

Of course, when you get kneed in the back and get a fractured vertebrae, not much acting is required.