Can you ever really master C++? I've been at it more than 20 years and I'm still delighted to learn new things about the language and the library.
On the other hand, people like Scott Meyers have spent their lifetime and careers explaining its intricacies, without solving any real problems.
In C++, you fight with the language first and then face the problem.
And what's with the Scott Meyers ding? I think of him mostly as an educator and in that respect he's very accomplished.
Each time I hear a discussion between programmers, it is always these arguments of whether build tool A is better than build tool B, or whether VCS A suits their workflow better than VCS B, or how cool is the latest language feature. I never see programmers discussing the merits of their solutions, regardless of the language or environment.
What we don't have in common are the exact problems we are trying to solve. That's where design patterns and other higher level concepts become useful. Because the problems and solutions are so context specific, they happen on mailing lists. Tool discussions, on the other hand, are more generic and I think that's why you see them in more places.
Sometimes people think they know their favorite language, but most would fail a language puzzle quiz.
But that is especially true for C++. People who are confident in knowing it often lack the fundamental C knowledge (i.e. pointer arithmetic, the complete C type system, the subtle conversion and promotion rules, etc.), but would insist on knowing C++ very well just because they know how to define classes, virtual functions and throw a shared_ptr or a vector or a map at every problem.
Nor can they correctly point out all the cases of expected semantics, UB and implementation specific behaviour.
Regarding the fundamental C knowledge, part of it just leads to bad C++ code.
Right, I'm sure Go is the one and only language out there without a single pitfall or quirk.
It can be misleading to think of standard header code (especially template code) as "idiomatic C++". It'd be better described as "idiomatic standard-library-implementor C++", since the folks implementing stuff in std are operating under a whole set of constraints that don't affect ordinary C++ programmers. Arbitrary user-defined symbols that could be in scope, user-provided types that could have overloaded operator-comma, etc.
Designers and implementors are traditionally under a very different set of constraints than "average users" (who in this case are programmers), though their goals do align. But this leads to very different set of assumptions, optimizations, and tools being available. Things that would generally be overkill are suddenly very viable and worthwhile goals to achieve (e.g. micro-optimizations add up repeatedly so they're very worth it, vendoring is much more useful to control dependencies/scope of bugs), and vice versa.
So I wouldn't be extremely miffed if you look at libstdc++ or libcxx or <whatever> and find it somewhat unkempt or gross compared to average code. It's often very much not-average. In fact it's likely given careful understanding of the constraints that code exists under -- you'd come up with similar results.
It's such a complex language brimming with idiosyncrasies that I'd be inclined to really test anyone claiming to be a master. The standard is one thing, then there's the compiler you're using...
Also a programming language is not used alone and C++ standard library is quite tiny when compared to Java's standard library.
Even parts of C++ that are "normal user" features can be remarkably tricky. I know tons of C++ programmers who I'd happily trust to write code for me who would fall flat on their faces if asked to explain some detail of what std::forward does with an rvalue reference parameter bound to an lvalue argument.
There's a reason why a very common recommendation is to pick a subset of C++ and stick to it, and I've never heard of such a recommendation for any other language (outside of perhaps for portability reasons).
std::move?
That is true.
I can also remember other ones like differences between auto and decltype, or between auto and template parameter deduction across language revisions.
However, Java puzzles like the ones presented at Java ONE, or .NET changes in how native error handling changed on .NET 4.0, among many other examples, are also interesting as quiz questions.
And it's under active revision and improvement. There are great new things to learn every few years.
And to be frank: I'd say that anyone opposed to continue to learn new things is entirely in the wrong field if he/she works on any technology-related job.
However, constantly learning and updating things has its drawbacks. One of the rare times I tried to be hip and use the latest stuff, I tried rewriting parts of a small Android app of mine using java 8 and lambda closures. I made it work, but it required upgrading my minimum build version (locking out older devices), the compiler could barely handle it (gave some strange indecipherable errors relating to lambdas), and ultimately it was just a step backward. That kind of thing really frustrates me, because it's wasted (at best, deferred) effort.
Being conservative with new additions to your codebase seems a bit backward, though. Why not use the new, improved shiny language feature™ if you can?*
Of course, if you are prohibited by business requirements (e.g. missing modern compilers for a certain target platform) that's another story. Basically, it always comes down to practicality.
* A prime example would be the new way you can implement Singletons with C++11. Once you've used that, you realize how horrid pretty much all C++98-based attempts at this are.
Yes, I realize Singletons are often a bad idea.
You don't keep learn new stuff because C++ is super, uber, powerful. It is because it is not designed well and there are far too many dark corners.