Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the plan was to get high performance stuff into the browser, with languages like C/C++ and Rust and not to replace JS with Python, C# or Java. But well, I guess people will do it anyway, let's see how this plays out in the long run.
> I think the plan was to get high performance stuff into the browser, with languages like C/C++ and Rust and not to replace JS with Python, C# or Java. On the contrary, for many people performance isn’t a factor, but they find the idea of using the same language (and thus code) client-side and server-side appealing. This was one of the key features and benefits of NodeJS, and I won’t be surprised when I see others t…
Every cycle your app wastes is a cycle another app can't use. It's a fraction of a watt that adds up over time, draining batteries faster, drawing electricity from the power grid and burning carbon fuels.
Each individual cycle may be cheap, but when we have a culture of development that doesn't respect performance, the waste adds up and has a real impact on the world. Just like all other resources, in aggregate, waste is harmful.
Even on the spectrum of "developer productivity", you have to seriously consider if the operational cost of needing beefier servers to run slow-language-X is less than the operational cost of hiring fast-language-Y developers.
I doubt anyone has done a serious study of the issue. Say C++ is 15x faster than Python. You might be able to say that a C++ dev is 2x the cost of a Python dev. Is the ratio of development cost to server cost more than 7.5x? What about other languages that aren't quite so fast, but aren't quite so expensive? You might find that C# is 10x faster than Python, but devs are only 1.25x the cost. Now your ratio of dev cost to server cost needs to be at least 8x to come ahead.
And honestly, good developers are expensive, no matter what language they're working in. Choosing a programming language to be able to optimize for cheap developers could be optimizing for bad developers who can't create the features you need. They might be half the price, but can they get the job done--after all the reworks and defect fixes and other learning curves--in less than 2x the time? I've never seen a programming language on its own have that kind of impact on development.
The point is not that "Language X is universally better than language Y". My point is more that "some languages are so incredibly wasteful that you seriously have to start considering whether or not you're saving money".