You opted to use features of std::vector that are documented to be unsafe (notably ::data()). This is the actual C++ translation of the opening code in TFA:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::vector<int> vec = {1, 2, 3};
for (auto const & i : vec) {
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
}
It is possible to use C++ to write unsafe code! Amazing! Some people want a language where this is not possible! Great!
> This is straightforward: we create a vector containing the values [1, 2], then iterate over it and print each element, and then finally print out the length of the vector. This is the kind of code people write every day.
The C++ code I provided does essentially this (I omitted printing the length, since it is so trivial), and is "the kind of code people write every day".
The fact that Rust requires you to consider move semantics for such simple code is precisely one of the central points of the article.
The C++ code implements the intended goal, not the problem TFA is trying to illustrate.
Changing between:
for (auto i : vec)
and
for (auto & i : vec)
has essentially no bearing on what the author is trying to show. If they were focused on how move semantics are always important, they would not use an integer type.
