I absolute agree with you, but you already knew this. I think the terms "ownership" and "move" are confusing and what it really is "responsibility". > ...owne

I absolute agree with you, but you already knew this. I think the terms "ownership" and "move" are confusing and what it really is "responsibility". > ...ownership/move semantics is fundamentally based around the _responsibilities of values_ by tracking value usage. > ... > If we were to call Ownership Semantics a paradigm, it would be the orientation around the responsibility of values in a hierarchical fashion, placing emphasis on this system of responsibility, shifting focus from data structures and algorithms. I am not a brilliant writer (which I already knew, even though loads of people have commented on that), but I was trying to get an idea I had in my head onto paper. I wanted to explain that this abstraction is not as good as it is being advertized and does have its limitations. It's not a criticism of the concept, but its application to a bunch of problems.