It's posts like these that remind me how hard it is to write idiomatic/correct C++, when compared to something like Python or Java.
It's because C++ is a disaster.
Everyone likes to point out that you should only use a subset of the language. But that's not my experience with C++; only using a subset makes you vulnerable to all the problems associated with not understanding the actual language that is implemented, not just the subset you wanted it to be.
Yes C++ carries decades of history, but since C++11 even if you can still make use of this you don't have to cope with. It is perfectly fine to use only a subset of C++, you just have to use the right one and this is what this documentation is about IMO. Yes you have to understand the language to be efficient with it, but it is a language that allows high performance and maintainable large scale software.
Python was cited as an example in this thread and I don't get it. There a many ways to write the same thing in Python and I always end up spending more time looking on the web to figure out what is the "Pythonic" way.
On the other hand, not following some of these C++ guidelines can mean your code is subtley broken and depending on undefined behavior, or leaking memory, or accessing something it shouldn't, etc.
I write C++ at work. We all know the language pretty well. We send people to conferences. We have somebody presenting at CppCon next week. We still get bitten by C++ more than you would belive.
In any case, even compared to other systems languages, C++ is a mine field. It's sad that C++ and C are so entrenched that you've even equated systems and fast and unsafe, when unsafe really doesn't belong there.
Look at Ada. It performs just as well as C++ and is/was routinely used in low level embedded systems and safety critical systems. It's widely regarded as safe and doesn't have the problems C++ is so often associated with. It was first standardized in 1983 and C++ is just now getting around to adding some of the stuff Ada has had all along.
And then there are the newer, relatively unproven languages like Rust, Go, and D.
I do enjoy C++ a lot, but it payed an hefty price for C copy-paste compatibility.
And there's Rust: it's a pleasure to work with and has almost none of C++'s problems.
I am excited about Rust as well, and look forward to using it professionally in the future.
The real problem is your simple subset is often built with the very difficult features your attempting to avoid using. So by running from complexity you just embrace it, but don't learn that you're actually working with virtual templated necromancy until 2-3 months later when you try to extent the production code base.
I did two relatively big projects (years apart), with the last one using Qt (because I also needed to do a GUI), and despite it working and doing what was supposed to, I wasn't entirely happy with the quality of the code.
Oh man, I miss those days, ha ha.
You know you've finally reached peak C++ post-traumatic stress disorder when you walk into an interview and someone says "what does 'int x=5;' do?" and you spend half an hour trying to figure out what manner of hideous deception lies behind that simple expression. Your brow starts to sweat, your hands shake, and finally you exclaim "Undefined!".