a) Java is such an example. It does not offer fast development. Contrast it to so-called RAD (Rapid development) tools or rapid prototyping environments, ...  Java is a mostly a batch language with a long edit/compile cycle.<p>b) Right. There are several of those.<p>c) For dynamic languages there are fewer excellent compilers. If you check the usual benchmarks, Lisp compilers are among the best in that category.<p>d) That's true. But the reality is different. GCs have bugs. More complex GCs have even more bugs. The FFI may introduce possibilities for errors. I have seen Java guys struggle with obscure heisenbugs. In theory all is mature, in practice it took quite some time to get Java mature and if you read the SUN notes for some of their garbage collectors (the concurrent one, for example), they tell you that they are not stable enough for production. For example the release notes at some point said: "Garbage First (G1) garbage collector
Improved reliability and performance
Available as 'early access' software. Usage of G1 in production settings without a Java SE for Business support contract is not recommended."<p>e) The 50 MB program usually will not touch all the code all the time - for example LispWorks can include the function compiler in the delivered application - it is likely not called very often. The 50 MB can also consist of a lot of Lisp data, not only code.