The points all sound reasonable. I wonder about the details though, for example > Dart is dynamically typed (or at least, types are optional and the VM doesn't

The points all sound reasonable. I wonder about the details though, for example > Dart is dynamically typed (or at least, types are optional and the VM doesn't care about them), but types are of a fixed shape. If programmers can tolerate fixed-shape types, Dart provides a very nice dynamic language that still can achieve the same optimizations as statically-typed Java or statically-compiled C/++. Again, the principle sounds reasonable - predictable types allow Java/C-like performance - but it would be nice to see this supported by empirical results. For example http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=dart&lang2=java&data=u32 http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?te... , http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=dart&lang2=gpp&data=u32 http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?te... and http://j15r.com/blog/2013/07/05/Box2d_Addendum http://j15r.com/blog/2013/07/05/Box2d_Addendum do not support the article's point. Dart's performance there is much like JavaScript's. The one dynamic language that can in many cases compete with C and Java is Lua, in the LuaJIT implementation. But Lua is very dynamic, much like JavaScript, so again this is a result in the real world that does not seem to add up with the article's point.