Not at all professing any love of Nim, but do think their concept of various options for memory management was a good one. Not all programmers have the same goals and problems.
Part of the issue can be that languages that do not provide any options for memory management, can try to make it seem that GC is more of a liability than it is. In the case of Nim, D, and other langauges... They are giving options, versus none. The lack of convenient choices, might be the greater issue, versus stigmatizing GC.
> Not all programmers have the same goals and problems.
That's why we have different programming languages. The danger of making a language a jack-of-all-trades is that it will be master of none. Restrictions are more often than not a good thing, they give the power to reason, for both humans and machines (giving, for example, memory safety).
Part of the issue can be that languages that do not provide any options for memory management, can try to make it seem that GC is more of a liability than it is. In the case of Nim, D, and other langauges... They are giving options, versus none. The lack of convenient choices, might be the greater issue, versus stigmatizing GC.