There's definitely a happy medium. One setting may indeed be too few, but JVM's many options ends in mass cargo-cult copypasta, often leading to really bad configurations.

Haven’t really seen anyone trying to use JVM options to get performance benefits without benchmarks for their specific use case the last 10 years or so.

Tuning options don't work well with diverse libraries, though. If you use 2 libraries and they both are designed to run with radically different tuning options what do you do? Some bad compromise? Make one the winner and one the loser? The best you can do is do an extensive monitoring & tuning experiment, but that's quite involved as well and still won't get you the maximum performance of each library, either.

At least with code hacking around the GC's behavior that code ends up being portable across the ecosystem.

There doesn't seem to really be a good option here either way. This amount of tuning-by-brute-force (either by knobs or by code re-writes) seems to just be the cost of using a GC.

That might be true, but from a language design PoV it isn't convincing to have dozens of GC-related runtime flags a la Java/JVM. If you need those anyway, this might point to pretty fundamental language expressivity issues.

This was the first time I've seen that annoying cAsE meme on HN and I pray it's the last. It is a lazy way to make your point, hoping your meme-case does all the work for you so that you don't have to say anything substantial.

Or do you think it adds to the discussion?

It indicates a mocking, over-the-top tone to indicate the high level of contempt I have for my originally-stated paraphrase (and the people who have caused software dev decisionmaking to be that way). So yes, I think it does add to the discussion.

It's annoying to read, so while it does get across the mocking tone, the reaction of annoyance at the author is far stronger.