> You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. Because it's not really interesting to

> You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. Because it's not really interesting to debate. Nobody writes Java code like that, and even when they do there's still overhead to it. The exact amount of overhead is kinda irrelevant since the language very obviously doesn't want you to write code like that. > Could you write that same code in a lower level language that it will still remain correct and safe? Rust is safer than Java, so yes :) But you're drifting into the productivity argument anyway, which I already pointed out is a reasonable reason to pay runtime overhead to get.