> The problem? Convenience. Who wants to type std::unique_ptr<Foo> when instead you can write Foo *? Why are the somewhat-deprecated options the easy ones to wr

> The problem? Convenience. Who wants to type std::unique_ptr<Foo> when instead you can write Foo *? Why are the somewhat-deprecated options the easy ones to write? Why isn’t it something like std::raw_ptr<Foo> with some convenient notation for std::unique_ptr? It would be a terrible idea for Foo* to mean std::unique_ptr<Foo>. If you are typing out "unique_ptr" so many times in your C++ code, you're probably doing something very wrong. The C++ unique_ptr controls memory ownership, and you typically only want one owner of a resource. Sometimes it is necessary to transfer ownership of the resource, but it is (or certainly ought to be) a rare occasion in comparison to how often you need to access the resource. I could understand if you are passing shared_ptr around all over your code (although I wouldn't recommend that), but unique_ptr?? Also, raw pointers have not been deprecated in C++. Raw pointers are not a problem when you get them from a unique pointer. Raw pointers can be a source of errors when a single pointer is used to index into multiple objects, but for this C++ now has std::span<T> so you can avoid most of those common errors.