You can get those benefits without the complexity of C++ if you're willing to break with the past (and as for the newer features, it's possible C++ could have implemented them more straightforwardly, though maybe they were already designed into a corner).

For example, look at C++'s concept of move semantics. The language still runs destructors regardless of whether a value has been moved. This means every movable class has to have a valid "empty" state the destructor can check to avoid double frees. That means you need move constructors which can run arbitrary code. And that means generic code that does moves has to care about exception safety.

Instead, the language could statically avoid running the destructors of moved values. No more rvalue zoo needed to trigger a move, no more mandatory "empty" states because the destructor can assume a valid object, no more move constructors because they all reduce to memcpy, and thus no more exception safety problems and an easier job for the optimizer.

If you implement a move as a swap (as in the examples I saw when I first heard of move constructors back when it was called c++0x) you don't need an empty state.

Not being able to keep track of what cases call a destructor and which ones do not sounds like a much more huge problem than the one you are talking about. Doesn't seem too hard to avoid the temptation throw in a move constructor.

You can't always swap. For example, you may want to use a movable but non-copyable type to keep un-aliased access to a single resource (see linear/affine types) and the compiler treating the move source as dead is useful there. Or maybe you don't want to allocate anything for the move target because the resource you're managing is expensive.

Keeping track of when a destructor gets called is not a huge problem at all. From the user perspective it's airtight, proper uninitialized value analysis in the compiler make it impossible to screw up. From the implementation perspective all you need is the occasional flag on the stack (whose value is already calculated) for situations like `if ... { use_by_move(obj) }`, and a rule against moving things out of fields that you're otherwise not responsible for destructing (you can still swap there).

> If you implement a move as a swap (as in the examples I saw when I first heard of move constructors back when it was called c++0x) you don't need an empty state.

You do to e.g. default construct the temporary you'll be swapping with in the first place. Problematic if you're trying to construct e.g. a reference-like type with no null state.

How do you handle mode as a swap for something like a socket, or a file handle in that case?

These typically have null-like states in C++. If we were making a std::ifstream clone without templates inheritence, etc. we might write...

  class ifstream {
    FILE* f;
    ifstream(const ifstream&) = delete;
    ifstream& operator=(const ifstream&) = delete;
  public:
    ifstream(): f() {}
    explicit ifstream(const char* path): f(fopen(path, "rb")) {}
    ~ifstream() { if (f) fclose(f); }
    
    ifstream(ifstream&& original): f() {
      std::swap(f, original.f);
    }
    
    ifstream& operator=(ifstream&& original) {
      std::swap(f, original.f);
      return *this;
    }
    
    // ...
  };

This is very similar to the common pattern of implementing vanilla assignment in terms of copy construction and a swap.

EDIT: Added deleted copy ctor/assignment ops because I'm not a savage.

In the move constructor of the object wrapping an open file, swap the integer descriptors.