asm
c
basic
pascal
c++
some fortrans
crappy languages which have lisp in their names, but are not really lisps: newLISP(reference counting), BEELisp.
bcpl?, b
some toy languages whose author never bothered to implement a gc.
Anyways OP, your question is poorly worded, it should be:
Which languages are designed in such a way that they don't need a GC as some languages may have poor implementations without a GC, but the language itself can be GCed?
I wouldn't use any of them much these days except for C and asm, for everything else, a language with a GC is fine.
It should also be noted that these languages can have a GC, yes even C and asm, but it won't be a precise GC.
>>10
ML(SML,O'Caml), any .NET language, any VM language, any real Lisp (CL implementations, Scheme implementations, Clojure and others), Haskell, Smalltalk, Dylan, and pretty much most modern languages that you can find (exception to these rules are toy languages designed by unexperienced people like PHP or newLISP, which use refcounting).
C,C++,Asm, other imperative statically typed languages also support gcing as a third party library (not precise).
, ─ヽ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ /,/＼ヾ＼ ／And with that, >>13 made such a
|＿＿|＿＿|＿＿|＿ __（（´∀｀＼ ）＜ fool of himself that he could
|＿|＿＿|＿＿|＿＿ ／ノへゝ/''' )ヽ ＼ never show his face there again.
||＿＿| | | ＼´-｀） / 丿/ ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
|＿|＿| 从.从从 | ＼__￣￣⊂|丿/
|＿＿|| 从人人从. | /＼＿＿/::::::|||
|＿|＿|／//ヽヾ＼ / ::::::::::::ゝ/||
────────(~～ヽ::::::::::::|／ ＝ THE END ＝
As a newfag to /prog/, I have to say that I am impressed by the level of hostility here. But you guys fall a distant second to /tg/. Take a moment to ponder the implications of that.