And http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=356854 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=356854 (pdf: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.1717&re

And http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=356854 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=356854 (pdf: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.1717&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468...) treats reference counting as a "way to distribute GC overhead time". I'm not saying the term always is used that way in academia. I'm saying that it's sometimes used that way, and that it's valid to call RC a form of GC. Ironically I said that RC was a form of GC to avoid precisely this argument, because if I say "Rust doesn't have GC" I'll have a bunch of folks telling me that RC is a form of GC. This is largely irrelevant to the point I was making, which explicitly distinguished between RC and tracing ("magic") GC -- which I suspected (but wasn't sure) was what was being asked about.