[gpderetta]

Shared_ptr and unique_ptr are not replacement for raw C pointers. And the reason they are not blessed with language syntax is because user can and often do implement their own, so those two library types are not particularly special.

[BenFrantzDale]

Agreed. And a huge strength of C++ is that you can write low-level classes like these and have them be fully performant and have reasonable native-feeling syntax. Almost no other languages provide that.

[IiydAbITMvJkqKf]

Specifically, both shared_ptr and unique_ptr are owning pointers. Using plain old pointers for non-owning variables is idiomatic.

[tialaramex]

Non-owning pointers are a genuinely useful tool, but as a tool they're more welding torch than hammer, if that's what you needed it's really what you needed - but most often it probably isn't what you needed at all and will cause more harm than good.

So it's strange to provide them with stuff like terse built-in syntax, while not providing anything similar for the thing people will want all the time, ownership. Result: The Right Thing™ is harder to do and wastes visual space compared to the Wrong Thing. A "correct" program ends up full of boilerplate just to get what you'd obviously want.