My point was that there are tradeoffs, which you admit. The comment i responded to indicated that there wasn’t one.
But the fundamental thing is that you still have to think about memory, memory layout will have to be considered during refactors, etc.
And "tradeoffs" is a misleading term to apply to a process that does not involve giving up anything in exchange for the benefit of pause-free, fully predictable operation.
And you do absolutely give up something with not using a GC: speed of development, much bigger teams can work on the project at the same time while not stepping as much on each other’s foot, etc. It’s not an accident that perhaps the majority of all software development is in managed languages, where it is not absolutely crucial to control the exact memory layout.
That is the advertising claim, not substantiated.
A more plausible explanation for "the majority ... in managed languages" is: it enables employing lower-skilled, thus more easily obtained, labor. It doesn't so much matter how fast development is. Such practices commonly split a simple job among five or more people (a "team") who, collectively, probably cost more than one more-skilled employee who could do it all in much less time, but who is hard to attract to do it at all, and anyway better used elsewhere.
The statement about enabling lower-skilled employers to be hired is pretty much false. Embedded development payed significantly less than most places that uses Java today (at least in Norway), and there's really no difference in the skill of the people I work with.
There's a _significant_ difference in the problem being solved though. The project I'm working at now is, code-wise, bigger by an order of magnitude. As is the problem domain (ticket-selling services, vs firmware of payment terminal in old job).
When doing embedded, I never had to care about racing conditions in threads or across several microservices. The embedded device was single-core anyways, and only talked to one server.
Dealing with memory has been replaced by handling concurrency. Of those I'd argue that the latter is significantly harder than the first. But both add to development time, as it becomes a core point in most design discussions.
In our case, we truly do not need to care about memory. If we run out of it, we either upgrade the instance or add another instance. The monthly hardware cost is lower than the hourly cost of a developer, anyways. Having one less thing to worry about decreases developer time, as there's one less thing to include in our designs, and one less thing to worry about going wrong.
And frankly, you are not getting ahead with your arbitrary gatekeeping on “who is a real programmer”.
Not sure if you can disable the GC entirely, but you can set the initial heap high enough that it won’t trigger for the lifetime of the process.
If I were to port the app to C#, I have no way of telling the C# GC to never pause the audio thread, and to only pause the GUI thread. I'm not sure if it's possible for a tracing GC to coexist with a never-paused thread which owns manually memory-managed types, and for the two threads to exchange manually freed or GC'd objects without FFI boilerplate, serialization, or copying. If it exists (and there's a GUI framework written in the GC portion of the language), let me know!
Admittedly manual memory management does mean a lot more things to worry about (ranging from manual memory management to lock-free wait-free programming) Personally I find deterministic lifetimes and single ownership which can be moved/swapped to be elegant. However, Qt's QObject system combines the practical disadvantages of manual freeing (having to track complex semantics in your head, and check whether each method call transfers ownership or not, with leaks or use-after-free if you get it wrong) with the inelegance of GC (pervasive aliasing and mutability, unclear ownership, a magical runtime-like system).