> No, they aren't simple and the fact that are still widely misunderstood is basically proof of that.
The article disproves itself. Sure, move is simple, if you stick to that one very narrow use case (that still needs std::move() boilerplate around moves to signal intent).
The problem (that the article then goes to point out) is that there are so many non-simple and buggy ways move can (and does) get used.
So you don't just need to learn the simple use case (with added boilerplate), you also need to learn all the complicated buggy use cases so that you can avoid using them.
The article disproves itself. Sure, move is simple, if you stick to that one very narrow use case (that still needs std::move() boilerplate around moves to signal intent).
The problem (that the article then goes to point out) is that there are so many non-simple and buggy ways move can (and does) get used.
So you don't just need to learn the simple use case (with added boilerplate), you also need to learn all the complicated buggy use cases so that you can avoid using them.
For actual "simple" moves, try Rust.