[bluGill]

While you are not wrong, it isn't the full picture. For most projects we don't need more language/compiler performance. Most web sights are served with a handful of servers, likely shared servers on AWS or something (so that you can get full data center failure redundancy - which is probably overkill). The total cost to run the servers isn't all that much on the bottom line and so you shouldn't pay more for compiler optimization.

Of course google, facebook, and other large companies should be paying for optimization as it will pay off, but the vast majority of systems don't run at that scale. For most optimization is about ensuring response time is acceptable, and that is generally more about optimizing your code not your compiler.

[benreesman]

Its not even that you’re wrong in any meaningful way that makes this endlessly looping class of argument get under my skin.

I think it’s maybe more like: we need an HN where it’s unanimous that the computer side of optimization is life-and-death, and an HN where winning and losing is about other things, any language or database or algorithm is fine: we’re playing a different game that pays off just as much if not more.

People routinely make more money than they can carry on like node.js or whatever, it’s not a “better”/“worse” thing. But some people are looking for edge on gritty nuts and bolts of computing stuff, and some people are laughing all the way to the bank on this whole other category of thing that I can’t even do justice to in summary.

Trying to weld together an unspoken (except by idiots like me) consensus on how to stack rank these very different activities just seems to piss everyone off.

[JonChesterfield]

This only works because you already have access to an optimising compiler and high level language implementations, likely both available for free, because other people and organisations have already paid for them to exist.