C++ doesn't have ownership baked into the language like Rust does, and "move semantics" is all about ownership (under the hood it's just a plain old shallow copy both in C++ and Rust). Making the moved from object inaccessible like in Rust would have required static ownership tracking which I guess the C++ committee was afraid to commit to (and once you have that, you're basically halfway to Rust, including the downside of a more restrictive programming model).

> Making the moved from object inaccessible like in Rust would have required static ownership tracking which I guess the C++ committee was afraid to commit to (...)

I'm not sure the "afraid to commit to" is a valid interpretation. The requirements that the C++ standard specifies for moved-from objects turns that hypothetical issue into a non-problem. In C++, if you move an object then after the move the object must be left in a valid state. That's it. This means the object can be safely destroyed.

You are also free to implement whatever semantics your moved-from object has. If you want your moved-from object to throw an exception, you are free to implement that. If instead you want to ensure your moved-from can be reused you are also free to do so. If you want to support zombie objects then nothing prevents you from going that path. It's up to you. The only thing the standard specifies is that once the lifetime of that object ends, it can be safely destroyed. That sounds both obvious and elegant, don't you agree?

You'd have to mark some functions as deleting their arguments. But I wouldn't really call that ownership. And it shouldn't restrict the language: If the compiler can't solve it statically then it can set a flag or null and check it before calling the destructor. Instead of a guard being built into every destructor use.