I sympathize if you put it this way. The boxing and unboxing of types can probably be done better in some languages. I suspect a well-optimized C++ compiler can

I sympathize if you put it this way. The boxing and unboxing of types can probably be done better in some languages. I suspect a well-optimized C++ compiler can probably make the perf cost mostly free if you give it the class the correct magic keywords. It's just that you seem make a bigger fuss out of the problem than it actually is. Even with Java, there's boilerplate and some performance cost, but it's doable, and the real reason people don't do it (when they should) is because they underestimate the risk of making mistakes. (eg. Nobody uses JSON if the requirement is to squeeze out every single ounce of performance from the CPU, there are better binary protocols.) Maybe it's indeed Stockholm syndrome, but I don't really see it as a problem of the "world at large". The tech is there, it's easily and freely available. Of course there's trade off between popularity and technical superiority, as always, but there's really nothing preventing you from writing Rust or TypeScript right now, if you feel strongly enough about it. So your job requires you to use a 3 decade old language? You can always change jobs or start your own thing using new tech. I mean, I'm using these 3-decades-old languages at work but at least I know it's a choice I make in exchange for decent pay and a stable job. Complaining about the lack of adoption of new tech (or coworkers not utilizing the type checking system properly) and then not taking proactive steps to fix the problem seems a tad bit hypocritical to me... The reason the world has not caught on with better tech is precisely due to the same reasons that you're not using it in the first place.