> They used a checkbox, blanket argument against GCs, where the discussion was specifically about Go. It is just something I've noticed about the Rust team -- t

> They used a checkbox, blanket argument against GCs, where the discussion was specifically about Go. It is just something I've noticed about the Rust team -- they overwhelmingly hold Go as their foe, and most if not all advocacy seems to be targeted at Go. No they didn't. You just perceive it this way because fans of Rust often post in threads adding 'What about Rust'. Fans non withstanding, I haven't really seen pcwalton or others (top 10 Rust contributors) behaving as you said they do. They comment on GC and various Firefox related technologies. Once the talk comparing Rust/Go starts, but I don't think they are as dismissive as you paint them. But hey, prove me wrong, cite some messages. -------------------- > In many other domains it needs to be analyzed, and there are no hard and fast rules. As I mentioned, the overhead of GC in most real-world Go solutions is close to if not completely irrelevant. Simply pointing it out as a checkbox, especially compared to what is effectively vapour right now (meaning you can't coherently compare solutions because one player is entirely unequipped to do so), is vapid laziness. I offered no checkbox, just an explanation why people are excited about Rust. To me the greatest power comes not so much lack of GC, but concurrency, safety (no nil, compiler errors on unassigned variables) and zero cost abstractions.