当这篇文章提到“现代 C++”这个术语时，似乎说的是 Andrei Alexandrescu 如今已有 16 年历史的现代 C++ 概念 [1]，而不是 C++11 及更新的概念 [2]。[1] 诚然，Andrei 的概念在今天仍然完全适用……
When this article refers to the term "modern C++" it seems to be talking about Andrei Alexandrescu's now 16 year old notion of modern C++ [1], not the C++11 and newer notion [2]. [1] Addmittedly, Andrei's notion is still completely relevant today…
…idiomatic C++17 feels like... I dunno, Rust without the borrow checker and everything is in an unsafe block. (I'm trying to think of a better example) (as an aside, there are two different things called "modern c++". I'm pretty sure it's a joke, but it's a terrible one. There's Andrei Alexandrescu's 2001 book Modern C++, and there is are the coding practices that evolved out of the development of C++11/14/17.)…
先不说“现代 C++”到底指什么、Andrei Alexandrescu 那本书、C++11、C++14、C++17、C++20、C++23，这件事只能说明，那些本该更懂行的公司——它们可是 WG21 成员——写出来的 C++ 代码到底有多“现代”，还有 C++ 编译器……
Beyond discussing what Modern C++ actually means, Andrei Alexandrescu book, C++11, C++14, C++17, C++20, C++23, this only goes to show how "modern" is the C++ code from companies that should know better as WG21 members, and C++ compiler…
呃。我原以为按 Andrei Alexandrescu 那套风格写“现代 C++”时搞出来的某些签名已经够毛了，但这个看着更恶心。不是好的那种。不过这么疯的东西大概确实能实现点挺酷的功能？
Yuck. I thought some of the signatures you end up with when building “Modern C++” in the Andrei Alexandrescu style were hairy, but this looks sick. Not in a good way. Probably does something cool for all that crazy though?
当这篇文章提到“现代 C++”这个术语时，似乎说的是 Andrei Alexandrescu 如今已有 16 年历史的现代 C++ 概念 [1]，而不是 C++11 及更新的概念 [2]。[1] 诚然，Andrei 的概念在今天仍然完全适用……
When this article refers to the term "modern C++" it seems to be talking about Andrei Alexandrescu's now 16 year old notion of modern C++ [1], not the C++11 and newer notion [2]. [1] Addmittedly, Andrei's notion is still completely relevant today…
……地道的 C++17 感觉就像……我不知道，没有借用检查器、所有东西都在 unsafe 块里的 Rust。（我在试着想个更好的例子）（顺便说一句，有两个不同的东西都叫“现代 C++”。我很确定这是个玩笑，但是个糟糕的玩笑。一个是 Andrei Alexandrescu 2001 年的书《Modern C++》，另一个是从 C++11/14/17 的开发中演化出来的编码实践。）……
…idiomatic C++17 feels like... I dunno, Rust without the borrow checker and everything is in an unsafe block. (I'm trying to think of a better example) (as an aside, there are two different things called "modern c++". I'm pretty sure it's a joke, but it's a terrible one. There's Andrei Alexandrescu's 2001 book Modern C++, and there is are the coding practices that evolved out of the development of C++11/14/17.)…
……https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1977_video_game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Alexandrescu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_C%2B%2B_Design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B 补充：拼写
…https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1977_video_game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Alexandrescu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_C%2B%2B_Design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B Edit: spelling
先不说“现代 C++”到底指什么、Andrei Alexandrescu 那本书、C++11、C++14、C++17、C++20、C++23，这件事只能说明，那些本该更懂行的公司——它们可是 WG21 成员——写出来的 C++ 代码到底有多“现代”，还有 C++ 编译器……
Beyond discussing what Modern C++ actually means, Andrei Alexandrescu book, C++11, C++14, C++17, C++20, C++23, this only goes to show how "modern" is the C++ code from companies that should know better as WG21 members, and C++ compiler…
看来我们可能已经进入后现代 C++ 时代了，毕竟 Andrei Alexandrescu 那本《Modern C++ Design》2001 年就出了。
Seems like we might be in the post-modern C++ age, since the Andrei Alexandrescu "Modern C++" book came out in 2001.
呃。我原以为按 Andrei Alexandrescu 那套风格写“现代 C++”时搞出来的某些签名已经够毛了，但这个看着更恶心。不是好的那种。不过这么疯的东西大概确实能实现点挺酷的功能？
Yuck. I thought some of the signatures you end up with when building “Modern C++” in the Andrei Alexandrescu style were hairy, but this looks sick. Not in a good way. Probably does something cool for all that crazy though?