I'm not sure why you trimmed the beginning of my sentence. The parent comment says: "(vastly simplified of course - but in languages with automatic memory mana

I'm not sure why you trimmed the beginning of my sentence. The parent comment says: "(vastly simplified of course - but in languages with automatic memory management - no matter if garbage collection or refcounting - you need to spend so much effort to reduce memory management overhead that it is usually less work to do it all manually in the first place)" That suggests they are claiming that all users of GC languages will eventually spend more effort dealing with memory than if they'd skipped a GC in the first place. I am making an existence proof counterargument: I have worked on many many programs in GC languages where at no point in the program's lifecycle did I need to spend much time worrying about memory. I believe the claim "all programmers will spend more time dealing with memory in GC languages" is false. I have absolutely not made any claim that "no programmer will spend more time dealing with memory in GC languages". There are certainly programs that are better written with manual memory management. I've written plenty. My point was only that there are also plenty of programs where that's not true.