But it's not nonsense, realiability isn't all or nothing, and GC has the effect that it completely removes a class of problems that happen often in languages like C or C++ when doing manual memory management. It is making those programs more reliable, even if they aren't as bug-free as your typical spacecraft software.

That was just a joke with Apple. :)

I'm not arguing against GC or the reliability thereof. I'm merely arguing that "GC is required for reliability" is a ridiculous straw man of a myth. I am in fact a fan of GC, but I also recognize that when lives are on the line, GC and indeed dynamic memory management of any type is usually out of the picture.

The reason this isn't a straw man is that it's a true belief held by many people; most of us aren't exposed to the extremes of reliability that you're talking about. When lives aren't on the line, memory management is generally a necessity.

Who actually holds this belief, that garbage collection is a requirement for reliable software? Most people don't work with such software but surely everyone who even thinks about programming is aware that it exists. I mean, you don't have to dive deep into computing to know that cars are full of computers and software these days.

Keep reading HN. You'll see articles and comments that state (or imply) that normal humans can't handle memory management, and therefore GC is the way to avoid bugs and memory leaks.

Sorry, I can't give you references off the top of my head, but I've seen that stated, here, in the last couple of months at least.

I get this feeling too, and I wonder if it is from a large vocal group of people who have never ever developed anything in C or C++, yet appear to know all about how "dangerous" it is and enjoy mocking the languages, whilst pointing to niche languages with much smaller development tool ecosystems and support libraries.

Is it just me?