That's not at all a "we don't like C++" problem. That's "the chosen borrow-checking model makes cyclic structures hard, you have to do Rc/Arc and some manual management, or use unsafe and raw pointers". (Frankly, the latter is easier.)
Right. The comment you replied to said "Rc/Arc and some manual management" -- "some manual management" implying that you need to account for the change to semantics in the manner appropriate for your application.
The key part I agree with most in your edited comment is that unsafe raw pointers are the easiest way to deal with cycles.
I think this is key. RC pointers don’t give you the ability to say: ok, I now know that this subset of the graph is dead because reasons so delete it. In RC, you’d have to walk the graph to break cycles. That’s a rather important difference from how you’d manage a cyclic data structure in C, C++, Java, C#, or any GC’d language. In C/C++, you’d delete what you know to be dead; in Java et al it would be enough to kill the references that point at the outer edges of the dead subgraph. But you wouldn’t have to walk the subgraph to detangle the cycle.
I think it really is worse than that; ie as you say, folks will just do anything but RC in that case. In Rust the safe bet would be to just shove all the nodes into an array and use indices (yuck!!!). But likely a lot of code with use raw pointers instead (also yuck). The whole thing where you reference count cyclic data structures is just too painful for sensible people
It doesn't fully handle the memory management, but it handles having shared references. You can use weak references or manually break the links when you want to free something. Or you can use unsafe raw pointers, which frankly seem simpler. Either way you're going to wrap it in a data structure that encapsulates all the details.
