2004 is old now? Really?
Honestly, good books don't age as long as their core domain stays valid. Structurally C++ is pretty much the same as when the book came out.
It was written for a different type of developer and a different type of development environment and a specific language, C++.
You haven't looked at C++ lately if you think it's the same as it was in 2004. The ISO has released new versions of the language in 2011, 2014 and ratified a new standard here in 2017. If you're writing C++ code that is consistent with 2004 C++ then you're writing a really bad version of "C with classes", not C++.
Edit:
Modern C++ contains native support for the filesystem, threads, lambda expressions, variants, upcoming networking library, coroutines (at least in Visual Studio), no more new/delete memory management, parallel algorithms and a ton more. This is a completely different language now and the code you write looks nothing like 2004 C++ code.
Just about all of these things were around in 2004.
"If you're writing C++ code that is consistent with 2004 C++ then you're writing a really bad version of "C with classes", not C++."
I applaud your attempt at an authoritative voice. But you focus on mostly technical trivia that are thin scaffolding on top of the language. I agree modern C++ is nice but it's the same language still.
"This is a completely different language now and the code you write looks nothing like 2004 C++ code."
Are you trolling? This reads like a transcript from a TV commercial.
> I agree modern C++ is nice but it's the same language still.
Well...in the same sense that any language is the same language after you add a bunch of things to it that weren't there before and shift to using those new features as idiomatic parts of the language. I would expect C++ written in 2004 to use different patterns than C++ written in 2017. Not "completely different"...but different.
