Whenever you use 'new', you have to decide what is going to 'own' the newly allocated thing. You'll also have to remember to call 'delete' somewhere. Using uni

Whenever you use 'new', you have to decide what is going to 'own' the newly allocated thing. You'll also have to remember to call 'delete' somewhere. Using unique_ptr/make_unique() or shared_ptr/make_shared() automates lifetime management (obviates the need for a manual 'delete') and makes the ownership policy explicit. They also have appropriately defined copying behavior. For example: struct Foo { // lots of stuff here ... }; struct A { Foo* f = new Foo; ~A() { delete f; } }; struct B { std::unique_ptr<Foo> f = std::make_unique<Foo>(); // no need to define a dtor; the default dtor is fine }; For the destructor and the default constructor, compilers will generate basically identical code for both A and B above. If you try to copy a B, the compiler won't let you because unique_ptr isn't copyable. However it won't stop you from copying an A, even though as written (using the default copy ctor) that's almost certainly a mistake and will likely result in a double free in ~A().