> GC pauses, Rc<T> does not, it's simply a deallocation by the last reference holder There are pauseless GCs (e.g., Azul for JVM), and Go kicked off a trend of

> GC pauses, Rc<T> does not, it's simply a deallocation by the last reference holder There are pauseless GCs (e.g., Azul for JVM), and Go kicked off a trend of super-low-latency GC. Also, RC deallocation is O(N) while GC is usually O(1) (ignoring pedantry about how RC is a type of GC). Further, RC can't handle cycles automatically. > Rc<T> still has predictable memory allocation/deallocation, GC is not guaranteed to run until needed Deterministic GC exists, but admittedly isn't widespread. For most non-critical real time systems (e.g., video games) a low latency GC is probably sufficient. > More efficient memory use, no need to keep track of allocated objects I'm not sure if this is true? Presumably each RC has an int for its reference counter? I'm not sure what the bookkeeping overhead is for tracing GCs, but I'm guessing it's not O(N)? > The rest of the Rust language is a pleasure to use (imo) Agreed, but the borrow checker affects everything so this is a pretty small consolation in practice.