If using something like shared_ptr in C++0x, it does come with some drawbacks (due to not having a strict ownership) as mentioned by Bjarne Stroustrup[1]: Plea

If using something like shared_ptr in C++0x, it does come with some drawbacks (due to not having a strict ownership) as mentioned by Bjarne Stroustrup[1]: Please don't thoughtlessly replace pointers with shared_ptrs in an attempt to prevent memory leaks; shared_ptrs are not a panacea nor are they without costs: -a circular linked structure of shared_ptrs will cause a memory leak (you'll need some logical complication to break the circle, e.g. using a weak_ptr) -"shared ownership objects" tend to stay "live" for longer than scoped objects (thus causing higher average resource usage) -shared pointers in a multi-threaded environment can be expensive (because of the need to avoid data races on the use count) -a destructor for a shared object does not execute at a predictable time, and the algorithms/logic for the update of any shared object is easier to get wrong than for an object that's not shared [1] http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#std-shared_ptr http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#std-shared_ptr