Interesting quote from LIL's designer on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Implementation_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_I

Interesting quote from LIL's designer on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Implementation_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Implementation_Language). `LIL is, however, a failure. Its stiffest competition at Bell Labs is the language C, which is higher level, and machine independent. Every time it looked like C was too expensive to use for a particular project, LIL was considered. But almost every time, it proved easier (and more rewarding) to improve C, or its runtime support, or the hardware, than to invest time in yet another language. ... A machine independent language is always superior -- even for writing machine dependent code (it's easier to find trained programmers) -- so long as the overhead can be endured. It is clear now that writing straightforward code and then measuring it is the formula for the best end product. At worst there will be 5-15 per cent overhead, which is seldom critical. Once system writers become mature enough to recognize this basic truth, they gravitate naturally toward machine independent SILs. ... it looks like the little implementation language is an idea whose time as come -- and gone.`