At no point in invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman does one bother to define what a true scotsman is, only what it is not by way of handwaving away any example of problems with a category by implying the category excludes them. It's exactly what you've done when you state "People who argue against GC are almost always arguing against" some ancient, nonmodern, unoptimized GC.

Modern GCs have perf issues in some categories too.

> As such, it's inadequate to refute GC in general on the basis of long pauses and lots of garbage, you must refute each GC (or at least each type/class of GC) individually.

I do not intend to refute the value of GCs in general. I will happily use GCs in some cases.

I intend to refute your overbroad generalization of the anti-GC camp, for which specific examples are sufficient.

> Also, you can see how cherry-picking pathological, worst-case examples doesn't inform us about the normative case, right?

My examples are neither pathological nor worst case. They need not be normative - but for what it's worth, they do exemplify the normative case of my own experiences in game development across multiple projects with different teams at different studios, when language level GCs were used for general purpouses, despite being bypassed for bulk data.

It's also exactly what titzer was complaining was missing upthread:

> I've seen this sentiment a lot, and I never see specifics. "GC is bad for systems language" is an unsupported, tribalist, firmly-held belief that is unsupported by hard data.