Swift uses ARC (atomic reference counting) which differs from tracing GC. C++ and Rust have similar features but can avoid the overhead of ARC in many cases.

I know ARC is different from tracing GC, I just don't like how some people try to sell Swift as not garbage collected when it is. Python mainly uses RC, and no one would image calling Python not garbage collected. Calling Swift not garbage collected is a marketing trick, saying they make different tradeoffs compared to tracing GCs is true.

I have big and complex server in C++. Not a single explicit memory related call in it. STL does wonders in this department.

Incorrect, Swift is not garbage collected. It uses reference counting. Read more here: https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/AutomaticRef...

As for C and C++, yes, of course. I meant "everyone else" as in the trendy new languages.

Reference counting is technically a form of garbage collection, FYI.

Reference counting deals with operations that have constant time, which I think puts it in a different category than what people normally view as GC.

And has a different tradeoff, due to atomic operations being needed for objects shared between threads (and of course, circular references).

But no matter what, it is literally a GC algorithm, described in every book about GCs.

I'm not sure that's true. Python mainly uses RC, yet most people think of Python as GC'd. I would argue that most people think that GC == automatic memory management.

Yes, I think you are correct actually.