From: bc@freeuk.com   
      
   On 29/10/2025 22:10, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   > bart  writes:   
   >> On 29/10/2025 01:48, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >>> bart  writes:   
   >>>> On 28/10/2025 21:59, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >>>>> bart  writes:   
   >>>>>> On 28/10/2025 02:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 27.10.2025 16:11, bart wrote:   
   >>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>> If speed wasn't an issue then we'd all be using easy dynamic languages   
   > [...]   
   >   
   > Bart, is the above statement literally accurate?   
      
   Literally as in all 8.x billion individuals on the planet, including   
   infants and people in comas, would be using such languages?   
      
   This is what you seem to be suggesting that I mean, and here you're both   
   being overly pedantic. You could just agree with me you know!   
      
   'If X then we'd all be doing Y' is a common English idiom, suggesting X   
   was a no-brainer.   
      
      
   >  Do you believe that   
   > we would ALL be using "easy dynamic languages" if speed were not an   
   > issue, meaning that non-dynamic languages would die out completely?   
      
   Yes, I believe that if dynamic languages, however they are implemented,   
   could always deliver native code speeds, then a huge number of people,   
   and companies, would switch because of that and other benefits.   
      
   Bear in mind that if that was the case, then new dynamic languages could   
   emerge that help broad their range of applications.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > That's what this whole sub-argument is about.   
      
   Well I didn't start it. Somebody suggested the speed of a language   
   implementation had little relevance (not willing to admit the   
   shortcomings of A68G), and I suggested in light-hearted idiom that if   
   dynamic languages were much faster, their take-up would be much greater.   
      
   What should I have said, that it would increase by 54.91% over the next   
   4 quarters?   
      
   (Remind me to run my posts through a lawyer next time.)   
      
      
   > really meant is that dynamic languages would be more popular than   
   > they are now if speed were not an issue.  Possibly someone just took   
   > your figuratative statement a little too literally.  If that's the   
   > case, please just say so.   
      
   Oh, you finaly got it! See it wasn't hard.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)