> I'm a bit skeptical about this. [...] Some support [X], others don't. [...] I am super conflicted, but I err on the side of agreeing with you here. Gut feeli

> I'm a bit skeptical about this. [...] Some support [X], others don't. [...] I am super conflicted, but I err on the side of agreeing with you here. Gut feeling says it's too complex and fragmented to be "standardized". Generally speaking, "abstracting out" something should be done when that "thing" is actually pretty clearly defined and always end up behaving the same way. My understanding is GC does not qualify - despite its popularity we still don't know where the cut points are, in all honesty. There's a reason why languages differ so much from one another, and afaik this is still an area of quite active research. Adding to that, intricate understanding of GC internals of multiple languages is probably restricted to a very low amount of engineers, worldwide. This makes it very difficult for curious bystanders to understand, follow and critique the progress. Remember that this is a massive career project for the proponents, so they're also incentivized to push ahead and perhaps gloss over legitimate issues. And what if the design ends up being flawed, yet wildly popular? Then languages may be forced to conform to the WASM GC model in order to stay "modern" and attractive, while constraining their normal design space. That said, if everything goes dandy it can be a huge win, so I can relate to the excitement as well.