Comment by verdagon

Author here, you're correct that there are a lot of performance tradeoffs involved with various GC'd languages, and also correct that GC'd languages do have some support for deterministic destruction (especially with defer).

The article was trying to focus on the general approach of GC more than the GC'd languages themselves, and the article was already pretty long so I tried to keep it scoped to just developer velocity implications of the memory safety approaches themselves.

I did mention some of those aspects, for example how C# is more than just a GC'd language (it has value types to help avoid GC), and Rust is more than just borrow checking (it has RefCell). But I couldn't get as deeply into these other aspects as I would like.

(It's also pretty funny that the article's been called biased by both sides, in both directions now! Such is life.)

I also don't mean to specifically recommend Go over C#, and I see the line that gives that impression, fixing now.