&gt; I find your JVM related posts as borderline fanboyism<p>I think they&#x27;re much less fanboyish than any other language&#x2F;runtime discussion on HN.<p>&gt; it&#x27;s about not making exaggerated claims<p>I am not making exaggerated claims because <i>perfect</i> for me (and, by definition 95% of people) is precisely how I&#x27;ve defined the requirements from a runtime like Java (or Go, or Python, for that matter). So, if I say &quot;it gives you all the layout control you need&quot;, I don&#x27;t mean all the layout control you need to write a DSP, or all the layout control you need to get 100% performance -- only 99% performance. I think most people make the same assumption (because they&#x27;re not writing DSPs), and I find your posts nitpicky and possibly misleading for the target audience (who, by and large, don&#x27;t write DSPs or medical devices or particle accelerator beam controllers -- at least certainly on threads not discussing those interesting but extreme use cases). I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s reasonable to qualify every statement for some negligible (possibly nonexistent) portion of the participants, especially considering that that minority already knows the statements don&#x27;t completely apply to them. Not doing so doesn&#x27;t qualify as exaggeration IMO, but reasonable expressiveness, or else every discussion will be bogged down in irrelevant detail that will only distract from the main point.<p>So, yes, I stand behind my claim that value types give you all the control you need to get 99% performance for 99% of the use cases people would normally use Java for.