> Ownership is about lifetimes, not use. You're failing to understand that granting access to the raw pointer managed by a std::unique_ptr violates the precond

> Ownership is about lifetimes, not use. You're failing to understand that granting access to the raw pointer managed by a std::unique_ptr violates the precondition that the object owned by that smart pointer is managed exclusively by the smart pointer itself. It's very strange how you fail to get this point when you're trying to complain about C++'s supposedly memory management issues in general, and in this particular case an error sparking from violating these invariants. Failing to use a smart pointer, to the extent you even have to explicitly ignore errors from static code analyzers to make them, is not a language issue. It's a "pay attention to the big red error messages" issue. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It makes absolutely no sense to spend so much time and energy mindlessly criticising a programming language to then try to argue that making one of the most basic errors was somehow an acceptable practice when it clearly isn't.