Point is, with a mature GC, you don't need to change your code to change runtime GC behaviour - in fact, in JVM land, any usage of `System.gc` or similar in cod

Point is, with a mature GC, you don't need to change your code to change runtime GC behaviour - in fact, in JVM land, any usage of `System.gc` or similar in code is very much a code smell. To give a broad example, and to repeat the parent comment, I can avoid "ballast" by setting -Xms. But it goes further, if I have an existing JVM code base, and want to run it using a GC that exhibits similar low GC pause time to the Go GC, assuming I'm compatible with Java 12+ I can use the command line option -XX:+UseShenandoahGC without changing my code. If Shenandoah isn't producing the behaviour I want, I can change to another algorithm with -XX:+UseG1GC for example. I totally understand that Go's trying to avoid such complexity, but to quote Python's zen, complex is better than complicated. And I consider writing code to influence underlying runtime behaviour to be needlessly complicated.