> If you use shared_ptr everywhere, it's far too easy for your design to degenerate into object soup.
You mean that it's usually better design to have only one "owner" of an object? That's true.
It's worth noting that shared_ptr is also necessary for containers, so you might get into a habit of using it even if you're not creating multiple references.
shared_ptr isn't necessary for containers, it's only necessary for bad containers.
Edit: Of course I'm being a bit stupidly snarky here, obviously if you have a standard container you need a shared_ptr, or an intrusive_ptr, or some other pointer, the moral of the story is that std containers aren't good for holding owned pointers in C++03.
I don't think boost ptr_containers are particularly good either, but that's mostly because of the huge cost of putting the string '#include "boost/' in your code.
Not only. Over-use of shared_ptr is sloppy, and may cause reference leaks which are no easier to solve than memory leaks. Its use is recommended only when sharing semantics are actually required.
You mean that it's usually better design to have only one "owner" of an object? That's true.
It's worth noting that shared_ptr is also necessary for containers, so you might get into a habit of using it even if you're not creating multiple references.