> Go, Java, C#, and Python use garbage collectors. This makes them easier to use but slower and less predictable.

It does not. The term "garbage collectors" covers a whole spectrum of algorithms, some might slow you down (though not for the reason you may think) while others were invented to speed up memory management beyond that of C++, in exchange for other tradeoffs. Python's (mostly) refcounting GC is actually closer to C in its memory management overhead than to either Go or Java. It's also not what makes Python slow. Go uses a mark-and-sweep collector to find a balanace between speed, FFI, and footprint. Java uses moving collectors, which are faster - and some of which are even more predictable - than memory management in C++. That's because Java aims to offer better performance than C++ in large concurrent software, where low-level languages tend to suffer from various overheads due to their requirement for low-level control (Java trades off some performance in smaller programs, but mostly it trades of startup time and footprint). Moving collectors (but not refcoting collectors or mark-and-sweep collectors) are an optimisation over free-list approaches, not a compromise for convenience.

So it is true that slow programming languages tend to use some kind of GC, but that's not what makes them slow, nor does it make the super-fast languages that also use a GC (often of a very different kind) any slower. The range of languages that use GCs covers everything from the super slow to the super fast.

The quoted text says "slower". It does not claim that GC makes those languages slow overall.

Are you arguing that GC is not inherently slower than other memory management strategies (e.g. the Rust approach)? Or just that the cost is not worth optimizing away?