The "Pit of success" and "Pit of failure" aren't really about what's available in a language, it's about what's easy and natural.

I'd argue that in a language with the `new` keyword, nothing is more easy or natural than invoking it. `auto Foo = std::make_unique<Foo>(args);` is absolutely the right thing to do, but would you really be surprised to find `auto foo = new Foo(args);`?

I absolutely agree unique pointers are the right call. They just aren't necessarily the easy or natural call.

The contrast is rust where all ptrs are, by default, unique ptr and the compiler validates that for you.

I've thought before about making a "dialect" of C++ that doesn't add any new fundamental capabilities, but simply changes syntax to make the more modern options easy and natural and make old C features verbose and difficult. For example, using "*" to represent unique_ptr and std::legacy_c_ptr<...> to represent "bare" pointers. Ideally, such a dialect could be fully include-compatible with all existing C++ code (although macros could be difficult), similar to how Rust "editions" or go "language versions" work. If C++ compilers offered a "#pragma modern_defaults" would people be interested in using it?

Not really, one of the reasons people keep using C++ is its legacy.

It is already hard to educate people on modern language features and adoption of static analysers that enforce Core Guidelines.

Who would write the books and teaching materials for #pragma modern_defaults, and ensure it would be accepted into ISO?

Actually in C++ the vast majority of the time, the right thing to do is

    Foo foo{args};

Which is simpler than the other cases, more correct and more performant. The rare few times dynamic allocation of something that is not an array with new is needed is when you have polymorphic types - but then, the user code generally calls a factory function instead of new.

Can we agree that the new "best default" way of instantiating is... pretty damn weird?

    auto foo = std::make_unique<Foo>(args);

Think about explaining this to a new C++ developer.

This will feel much more natural to most developers:

    var foo = new Foo(args);

The "best default" way of instantiating is

    Foo foo(args);

Sometimes an object has to be on the heap as its own separate allocation (rather than on the stack or as a data member), but I notice that some new developers who come to C++ from some other language use the heap way too much.

> Think about explaining this to a new C++ developer.

How's this:

The code allocates and initializes a new Foo instance with args. By using make_unique you guarantee that the destructor is called when foo goes out of scope for any reason.

in my experience, it's almost inevitable that you end up calling some code you don't control that returns raw pointers. better hope you have access to the source or at least some good docs :)

Agreed. That problem existed even before unique_ptr though; there are still some APIs that I use that hand you back pointers that you may or may not need to manage yourself. If you do need to, then unique_ptr + custom deleter is the way to go!