Dynamic scripting languages are orders of magnitude worse than static languages at this problem, though, for several reasons. Their culture tends to encourage t

Dynamic scripting languages are orders of magnitude worse than static languages at this problem, though, for several reasons. Their culture tends to encourage these sorts of operations. They're slower than static languages in the first place, meaning every additional layer is that much more expensive on the clock. Their feature sets afford this style of programming, whereas static languages afford much lower cost features, if not outright zero-cost features. If you're going to be concerned about the sort of things you mention, then as an engineer, you need to turn those concerns into significant negative value placed on the option of dynamic scripting languages. Which is not to say that static languages are immune... indeed, I marvel at times at the effort and ingenuity put into bringing these issues at great cost into the static languages. Log4Shell, for instance, fundamentally stems from Java, with great effort, importing a very dynamic-scripting-language style reflection feature from the dynamic world, and then getting bitten hard by it. That's not a performance issue in this case, just a vivid example of that sort of thing. You can with enough effort layer enough frameworks and indirection in any language to make anything slow.