"Another difference in Rust is that values cannot be used after a move, while they simply "should not be used, mostly" in C++"
That's one of my biggest issues with C++ today. Objects that can be moved must support a "my value was moved out" state. So every access to the object usually starts with "if (have-a-value())". It also means that the destructor is called for an object that won't be used anymore.
The compiler generates code for calling the destructor after the object was moved. This was problem #1.
Regarding #2, take Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) as an example - in RAII, the existence of an object implies the existence of a resource. Now, if you want to be able to move, the object becomes "either the resource exists or it was moved out". As someone else noted in the comments, this affects not only the destructor. Methods cannot assume the existence of the resource, they have to check it first. Kind of like optional<MyResource>.
> I wonder what you are doing to get yourself in that situation.
The problem with the current move semantics is that, compared to e.g. Rust: 1) the compiler generates unnecessary code and 2) instead of just implementing class T you must implement a kind of optional<T>.
Which means, that after all those years of using smart pointers I find myself ditching them in favor of plain pointers like we did in the 90's.
Since I use move semantics all the time, this is for me the most frustrating thing about C++ full stop. I really wish they'd fix this instead of adding all those compile-time features.