I am reading about efforts to improve generic code development, in particular introducing the so-called Customization Points/Functions. What is a bit odd to me is, the issue of the usage, of how the code looks, is not questioned. The fact something that should be a member function is now a free function, behind a specific namespace is not addressed. I am well aware of the reasons why (I think I read all the papers), but this does not change the fact, we stray more and more away from "Generic code is just normal code". Mind you, we did it already with type_traits - instead of querying the template type for an associated type, we need a "free function", in the form of type trait, to get that type. Once we go the same route with function calls, we basically given up on generic code being normal code:

Normal code:

void function(string s) {
  using char_t = string::char_type;
  // ...
  { ... }

Generic form (optimistic in terms of syntax...)

template<String S>
void function(S s) {
  using char_t = stings::traits<S>::char_type; //< we need hoops
  // ...
  if(strings::begins_with(s, something)) //< we need hoops
  { ... }

You get the idea, and again, the generic version is optimistic. The point is, we have to drastically change the programming style in order to "go generic". This is a fundamental language limitation that should be addressed, but I am afraid it is not recognized as a problem currently at all. 

Thank You