[keyle]

Why do you think that's the future?

Isn't a waste to essentially reinterpret an entire program that may be run 5000 times a day?

AOT compilation, how is that different than make && run?

At some point, you have a compiled language, if it's quick to compile, you're doing the AOT yourself, the scripting is an illusion. Pun intended.

[nine_k]

Isn't it a waste to run a test suite for a program that would run 1M times a day in production?

The key adjective here is successfully run. You want to detect any errors as early as possible. Ideally even at the early stages of writing the script, when a typechecker is already able to point at certain errors, and thus help avoid missteps in further design.

[Syzygies]

> Isn't a waste to essentially reinterpret an entire program that may be run 5000 times a day?

This is a dated prejudice that I shared.

To get started coding with AI I made a dozen language comparison project for a toy math problem. F# floored me with how fast it was, nearly edging out C and Rust on my leaderboard, twice as fast as OCaml, and faster than various compiled languages.

Compiling could in principle be fastest, if we had compilers that profiled hours of execution before optimizing code, and only then for "stable" problems. No one writes a compiler like this. In practice, Just In Time interpreters are getting all the love, and it shows. They adapt to the computation. My dated prejudice did not allow for this.