It's hard to read into a tweet, but I'm pretty sure that he was not saying that the performance of a dynamically typed, garbage collected language will be equivalent to the performance of optimized, tuned C and C++.

No, if you follow his tweeter feed, he means he would like to have GC strong typed language with the performance from C and C++.

This follows his ongoing Haskell experiments and with a short deviation to Scheme/Lisp.

I was just trying to make the point that known game developers do value GC languages for game development, even if nowadays that is still not mainstream.

I am old enough to remember the days C was considered too slow and together with Pascal was just used for prototyping ideas, if ever. Times change.

games are not aiming to be 99.999% uptime reliable software.

are they not ? If your game crashes constantly no console vendor will let you have it on their platform and PC gamers are also turned off immensly by games crashing. Imo any game developer has to avoid it at all costs.

99.999% means roughly 30 seconds of downtime a month. If you play 4 hours a day every day, that means two periods of 30 second downtime a year. I can't imagine any game even trying to reach that sort of stability. It would be a complete waste of time and resources

you just downvoted me because games dont have 99.999% (in the sense of the word) uptime, which is not what i meant anyway... The thing is, crashes are not acceptable and so measures need to be taken, which is what Carmacks original quote is referring to.