[jayde2767]

This just seems intentionally bad to show where Rust would be better. This is yet another example of what I call "corner-case" instruction, which I define as, "I am going to take an obviously terrible corner-case that shows what an awful developer can do that will break a program, then demonstrate my brilliance by introducing my (highly-biased) opinionated point I wanted to make..."

In this particular case, it was subtly, Rust is preferred because it doesn't allow unsafe memory operations such as the one demonstrated. Really, all it demonstrates is that you can create really bad C++.

[surajrmal]

You could implement the same smart pointer library in rust and it would be fine. Rust doesn't magically solve the problems around defined destruction ordering when using ref counted pointers. I try very hard to model my usage of Rc or Arc to be very similar to what this article is trying to showcase for basically the same reasons I imagine they do. I'm actually inspired to write a crate with these semantics to make it harder to mess it up.

[surajrmal]

Sure enough I found it: https://crates.io/crates/refbox