> There are plenty of apps that don't need full on C++ performance and can't afford the dev costs anyways. Garbage collection isn't the big problem for these a

> There are plenty of apps that don't need full on C++ performance and can't afford the dev costs anyways. Garbage collection isn't the big problem for these apps; getting the code to work is. Yes, but I'm not sure how that's relevant considering that rust is attempting to compete against C++. This is definitely an area where statically analyzable performance bounds are really important, including memory management, and GC becomes very difficult to defend. GC is not the only way to remove manual memory management, and if performance is a priority you'll be hard-pressed to find a GC that naturally has the tradeoffs your particular algorithm will need to work optimally. In the end, GC solves a different problem than Rust does. GC says "I never want to think about memory." Rust says "I never want to deref a null pointer."