Because that won't help with software that "needs" to be written in C or C++.
This fallacy is why these languages are still in use. Time after time, designers of all the safer languages were deciding that GC makes everything so much easier, and it's perfectly fine for overwhelming majority of programs. This is correct and rational if the goal is to get many people use the language, but a total self-own if the goal is to replace C and C++ entirely.
This dodging of the low-level memory management problem was consistently avoiding exactly the types of programs that people felt they had to use C or C++ for. The easy majority of programs that don't need C is already well served, but the tough cases that needed C were left uncontested.
This fallacy is why these languages are still in use. Time after time, designers of all the safer languages were deciding that GC makes everything so much easier, and it's perfectly fine for overwhelming majority of programs. This is correct and rational if the goal is to get many people use the language, but a total self-own if the goal is to replace C and C++ entirely.
This dodging of the low-level memory management problem was consistently avoiding exactly the types of programs that people felt they had to use C or C++ for. The easy majority of programs that don't need C is already well served, but the tough cases that needed C were left uncontested.
From Rust's first introduction:
http://venge.net/graydon/talks/intro-talk-2.pdf
> Go seems to be barking up a different tree?
> Everyone is dodging the niche I'm interested in