cmpitg

This is the exact reason why I keep telling myself to slow down all the time, using pen and paper, drafting the problems and solutions before getting my hands dirty, writing them down and writing them bold. One tip I learn from my current CEO is that whenever you feel you're in a heating situation, get yourself a glass of water or coffee, drink it slowly, enjoy and the moment and do nothing. That quiet moment would help you slow things down, recharge your mental energy to do better.

And what does it have anything to do with C++ compared to any other language X? The bare-metal characteristics could be created as a subset of any non-safe non-garbage-collected language.

I agree on the overhead. There are information available only at run-time that could be (and actually has been, in case of interpreter like PicoLisp) used to have better optimization compared to compiled code. It isn't technically faster or slower.

Edited: Correct my bad grammar.

That said, it's a about the implementation not the language itself. The phrase is technically incorrect, right? One could write a compiler that compiles Python or Ruby down to machine language without the interpretation overhead, and not necessarily faster or slower than their original interpreters, or other C/C++ compilers.

I don't think it has anything to do the relationship between the language and its (compiler/interpreter) performance. Besides, the subset of a large number or programming language could be considered bare metal, right? If so, why mentioning bare metal at all?

I don't think it's fair to separate the code and the software itself. I personally don't feel proud of the result of a piece of software if the code is crappy, i.e. spaghetti code, (almost) unreadable, unmaintainable, ...

I think what the author wanted to emphasize was the importance of code clarity, as many of us developers don't actually care. Bad code builds up negative tech debts that somebody has to pay at some point in the future.