> The quoted argument that "easy to write but slow languages are better because programmer time is far more costly than CPU speed" was pretty common, and I hone

> The quoted argument that "easy to write but slow languages are better because programmer time is far more costly than CPU speed" was pretty common, and I honestly think correct, 10-15 years ago. But things have changed. I don't think things have fundamentally changed in the programmer time is cheaper than cpu time calculation. What has changed is: 1. Classic dynamic languages (ruby, python, etc) all heavily assume the world is single threaded and blocking io can be scaled well enough. Unfortunately, these maxims from the late 90s do not hold about modern CPUs. Languages that embrace non-blocking io such as node.js have been incredibly successful as a result. 2. Software projects have gotten bigger. Extremely anecdotally projects in dynamic languages get uncomfortable with about 10,000 lines and unworkable at about 100,000 lines. A lot of the popularity of these dynamic languages was that you didn't need to type out your types all the time. Newer languages languages have shown have been able to get the best of both worlds with type inference and structural typing. Typescript's meteoric rise is because of exactly this. Go and to a lesser extent Rust, have recognized these two issues facing last generation dynamic languages and have been successful because they address these issues head on. You can start a new Go application and have a similar time to market as python or ruby, but have it scale with your company, both in developer time and performance, for a long time. Why wouldn't you choose Go or some other new language?