C++ "smart" pointers do not free you from thinking about memory management; the fact that you are expected to choose between shared_ptr and weak_ptr should be e

C++ "smart" pointers do not free you from thinking about memory management; the fact that you are expected to choose between shared_ptr and weak_ptr should be enough to tell you that. Unlike languages with a garbage collector, C++ requires programmers to spend their time trying to figure out if they will create a cyclic data structure, and then also to figure out where that cycle should be broken. That is moderately better than having to figure out when it is OK to free memory and when it is necessary to free memory, but only moderately. Let's put it this way: if you were writing a doubly-linked list, where would you put the shared_ptr, and where would you put the weak_ptr (or would you just give up, use "dumb" pointers, and have destructors free memory)?