There is definitely a terminology problem. "Automatic memory management" is a more precise term than "garbage collection". It refers to the more user visible

There is definitely a terminology problem. "Automatic memory management" is a more precise term than "garbage collection". It refers to the more user visible trait, and pairs better with the antonym of "manual memory management" which is much more commonly seen. I would encourage people to use "AMM" as a term even if in their coding they do not use it. :-) "AMM" also begs the right questions such as "automatic -- in what sense, exactly?" It also tracks with the primordial C "auto" for stack variables (the automatically managed part of C - yes I am aware modern C++ repurposed it). It might even make some discussions have less talking past each other. This kind of oceanliner ship is hard to turn, though. There are a few high profile prog.langs and environments like Java/Go/old Lisp stop-the-world/etc. style where (some) people struggle with "GC". These struggles often give AMM itself a bad reputation - while C stack variables (often coupled with what people call "value types" today) are often the way to be very, very fast (yes, because of mostly CPU-private stacks..even so). Nim is very fast and has many choices in AMM from none to Boehm-Wiser to its own tracing variant to a new extremely low overhead ARC and ORC that have more Rust-ike aspects (but copying in some cases to be safe which is just about 10x easier to use in deviousmeters). With a TinyC/tcc backend Nim yields near Interpreter/REPL-like edit/compile/test cycles. It's really a joy to write code in most of the time. People should look into Nim more.