> GC will still be there. I think most of us know that well. And it all depends of course on the success of the owned refs -- the Gel2 paper is old and seems to had not too much influence on programming languages, so we may have good reasons to be a bit sceptical.
But I think his question was more about the wording. I was never too happy with the term "garbage collected language" written in bold on the homepage, as it reminds people too much to languages like Java not well suited for systems programming. I suggested "optional garbage collector support" some years ago. And other terms from the homepage: "elegant package" Do we want a good language or a niche package? "Compiles to C, C++ or JavaScript" that may let people think it is a plain transpiled one, as recently someone in the forum wrote. Maybe it would be a good idea to hire a native speaker to update some of the wordings. I recently visit Julias page, that one is really well done.
