Tim Bray attempts to denigrate dynamic languages as "big" and "bloated" when one uses them to deploy systems. Hmm. Maybe he can explain this. BottomFeeder is in the same neighborhood as the other tools out there in widespread use. So much for "fat". maybe he can explain why Netscape routinely chews more RAM on my desktop than do my running Smalltalk development environments, much less the deployed applications. Then there's the complaint that Ted comments on:
Secondly, and in the same spirit, there do remain performance issues. There are is some (small) number of people who have to write low-level webserver code, and if you've ever done this under the gun of a million-hits-a-day load, you quickly become a control freak with an insane desire to remove as many as possible of the layers which separate your code from the silicon.
Hmmm. Sure, you can get better math performance from Java or C++ than you can from Smalltalk. On the other hand, Strongtalk is comparable, and Lisp can be as fast or faster. The main reason Smalltalk environments don't optimize for math speed is that it's not very important for most business applications. Why are the C/C++/Java crowd always so obsessed with this? Get it working, get it optimized - in that order. The C language crowd invariably inverts this. Not to mention this - in my experience, the performance issues are invariably not where the developers thought they would be up front. Premature optimization is a poor development practice.