Pretty clickbaitey title.
It's possible to implement in C++... so it's not "too dangerous" for C++. It's dangerous for people who don't have knowledge of what they're doing in C++; same as in any programming language.
It's possible to implement in C++... so it's not "too dangerous" for C++. It's dangerous for people who don't have knowledge of what they're doing in C++; same as in any programming language.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/15140227/1614219
Which summarizes a discussion by the C++ standards committee to reject the C++ version of Rc, and one of the main arguments is the risk of Rc code being accidentally included in threaded code.
I would point out that this code can include: code you wrote years ago that you forgot includes Rc, code in libraries that was modified internally to use Rc and the authors forgot to mention it, code written by colleagues who aren't familiar with the pitfalls, etc. That's why this isn't a trivial problem to solve.
It's too dangerous to parachute off the Eiffel tower. That doesn't mean it's impossible, periodically somebody does it.
It supports some level of substructural types using must-call annotations,