>>1621
>If you pick your programming language based on how small the statically linked hello world is you can't go wrong.
<small automatically == better
That depends. If you are on a tiny, tiny microcontroller or sensor where size is of utmost concern then sure, that's correct. However, most of us (and the rest of the world) care more about wallclock perf. In that case, increasing the memory footprint of the image in exchange for much, much higher performance is the proper course. Either C or C++ can allow you to make these kinds of tradeoffs, but few other languages can. Assembler doesn't count b/c I don't want to spend six months of my life managing to pull off something I can do instead in two seconds with -O3
As with all engineering, there are always tradeoffs to consider, with different ramifications. The only absolute guarantee we have going in is The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Beyond that, it's a progression of exploration & creativity.
>tl;dr
Don't presume Anon, test.