Agree. But the argument put forward in favor of automatic memory management is that it speeds up development.
But if that is only true if you don't care about the architecture that argument doesn't hold (assuming you want a good architecture).
The claim I make is that you have to think about memory, either directly or indirectly. And if you have to think about it dealing with it yourself isn't a burden, it is liberating.
In in a similar sense to how a static type system is liberating. Which might sound a bit weird, until you need to refactor.
This is still a mostly circular argument though. An architecture is "good" if it's saving resources - compute, time, or labor. If your "good" architecture is slowing down development i.e. more time more labor, you'd better be able to point to significant compute gains or it's not actually good. Rust is, only sometimes, and marginally, better than other languages in this regard.
And your compute gains need to be something you can't just trade off against money for development time, i.e. it either needs to be a fundamental part of your problem, or you need to be planning for hyperscale. This is also only a small fraction of problems.
But if that is only true if you don't care about the architecture that argument doesn't hold (assuming you want a good architecture).
The claim I make is that you have to think about memory, either directly or indirectly. And if you have to think about it dealing with it yourself isn't a burden, it is liberating.
In in a similar sense to how a static type system is liberating. Which might sound a bit weird, until you need to refactor.