Box<T> is a type, so it’s confusing to say it returns a pointer. It holds a pointer.

GP should note that C++’s unique_ptr isn’t an obscurity.

Calling it Box is confusing. unique_ptr would be an improvement for the name, or maybe HeapRef. The problem is exactly that rust chose a misleading name Box (boxed types are something entirely different in most languages) instead of the obvious C(++)/Java-like _ptr, ref, * or & notation/convention

Boxed types in Java are basically the same thing: a heap allocated version of an otherwise stack-allocated type.

I thought the name was pretty clear; when I saw it in some list of different kinds of Rust pointers, I knew what it was immediately.

It doesn't matter if some people are confused, because you can just explain what it is in 3 seconds. What's important for such a ubiquitous type is that the name is short.

> instead of the obvious C(++)/Java-like _ptr, ref, * or & notation/convention

That would be very misleading since Box represents a heap-allocated owned value