From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 30/10/2025 00:19, bart wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   This would all be /so/ much easier if you just wrote what you meant in   
   the first place.  You don't need to use exaggerations and hyperbole, and   
   you don't need to extrapolate your own opinions as though they apply to   
   everyone.  And it doesn't help when you write with the assumption that   
   your gut feelings (with no objective information to back them up) are   
   "no-brainers" or somehow obvious, and then you get in a fluster when   
   others disagree.   
      
   On the particular point here, would more people use "dynamic languages"   
   (a somewhat vague term, but we are speaking vaguely here anyway) if   
   speed were not an issue?  I think if languages like Python or Javascript   
   were faster, we'd see a /little/ more use of them - but not much more.   
   After all, dynamic languages are already massively popular in particular   
   fields with today's speeds.  And while I doubt if anyone would complain   
   if they were faster (unless the speed increase cost in other ways), they   
   are apparently fast enough for a very wide range of uses.   
      
   Of course there are situations where people have thought "Python is too   
   slow for this, so I will have to use C even though I hate that   
   language".  But I personally do not think that will be the case for a   
   "huge number of people and companies".   
      
   > Bear in mind that if that was the case, then new dynamic languages could   
   > emerge that help broad their range of applications.   
   >   
      
   New dynamic languages pop up regularly, and there are many ways in which   
   their speed is being improved (such as JIT, or better byte compiling and   
   better VM's, as well as language design targeting speed).  But sure, new   
   ones could emerge that cover different use-cases better.  The same   
   applies to static languages.   
      
   Whether the speed of any /particular/ language - such as Algol 68 -   
   affected its uptake, is another matter.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)