> Has the Go team hit on some GC algorithm that has escaped the notice of the entire compiler-creating world since 1995?
It's like the saying about recycling: "1. Reduce 2. Reuse 3. Recycle". Just like in real life, it's far better to never have to go to all the way down to #3. If you never generate garbage in the first place, you won't have to waste resources cleaning it up. So it's less about how good the actual Go GC is and more that the language itself greatly discourages wasting memory via aggressive stack allocation, value types, and an allocation-conscious culture.
It's like the saying about recycling: "1. Reduce 2. Reuse 3. Recycle". Just like in real life, it's far better to never have to go to all the way down to #3. If you never generate garbage in the first place, you won't have to waste resources cleaning it up. So it's less about how good the actual Go GC is and more that the language itself greatly discourages wasting memory via aggressive stack allocation, value types, and an allocation-conscious culture.