I don’t think I’m following your point. That C# isn’t a VM language because there exist AOT compilers? That’s fine; my point is unrelated to the VM/interpreter/

I don’t think I’m following your point. That C# isn’t a VM language because there exist AOT compilers? That’s fine; my point is unrelated to the VM/interpreter/AOT taxonomy—just that dynamic languages aren’t particularly performant. I’m happy to concede the “C# is/isn’t a VM (even though 99% of production deployments are VMs)” point if it matters to you.