> This is a really interesting example, because it shows the lack of nuance in the anti-GC position. I wouldn't call my position strictly anti-GC. I would simp

> This is a really interesting example, because it shows the lack of nuance in the anti-GC position. I wouldn't call my position strictly anti-GC. I would simply say that GC isn't the panacea it's made out to be and it is at least in part a false economy for at least three reasons: 1. You may need to tune your VM/GC parameters (as you mention). There's a cost to this; 2. GC can make it harder to identify memory leaks (which are still a problem through, for example, dangling references). I've worked on C++ systems where we instrumented many things including process size, which was basically just a flat line. As soon as it wasn't, you knew there was a problem. And this was for a server that read about ~6GB/second off a NIC. 3. Crashing a program due to accessing unallocated memory tends to give a more immediate signal of a problem, which is more often than not better for development.