I don't think this is a fair summary of what I said. These were my points: 1. Performance improvements of interactive programs below a certain threshold are i

I don't think this is a fair summary of what I said. These were my points: 1. Performance improvements of interactive programs below a certain threshold are imperceptible and therefore of negligible value. 2. A minimalistic program does not always lead to better performance. 3. Compilation involves trade-offs and binary size and the number of syscalls executed are not the only things that matter. 4. The syscalls emitted by these programming languages are there for a reason and provide significant value to developers and users. I nowhere stated that memory was cheap, but I agree that CPUs are fast. As for latency, quibble with the numbers, but I don't think a user will ever notice the few hundred microseconds difference between the Go version and the ASM version. > But that's beside the point, which is that all these programs are doing a lot of things you didn't ask for and take megabytes to do that. Yes. And it both doesn't matter and optimizing them away has drawbacks. Theoretically the points in the original article could matter - writing a very simple tool with Electron for example. But the example given wasn't anything like that.