The complexity argument is just not true. You do have to know this stuff in c++, you run into it all the time.
I wish I didn’t have to know about std::launder but I do
replies(2):
I wish I didn’t have to know about std::launder but I do
Problem 1: You might fail to initialize an object in memory correctly.
Solution 1: Constructors.
Problem 2: Now you cannot preallocate memory as in SLAB allocation since the constructor does an allocator call.
Solution 2: Placement new
Problem 3: Now the type system has led the compiler to assume your preallocated memory cannot change since you declared it const.
Solution 3: std::launder()
If it is not clear what I mean about placement new and const needing std::lauder(), see this:
https://miyuki.github.io/2016/10/21/std-launder.html
C has a very simple solution that avoids this chain. Use structured programming to initialize your objects correctly. You are not going to escape the need to do this with C++, but you are guaranteed to have to consider a great many things in C++ that would not have needed consideration in C since C avoided the slippery slope of syntactic sugar that C++ took.
Problem 2 happens only when doing SLAB allocations - say, 1% of the time when using a C++ class. (Might be more or less, depending on what problem space you're in.)
Problem 3 happens only if you are also declaring your allocated stuff const - say, maybe 20% of the time?
So, while not perfect, each solution solves most of the problem for most of the people. Complaining about std::launder is complaining that solution 2 wasn't perfect; it's not in any way an argument that solution 1 wasn't massively better than problem 1.