<i>People might reply to this with benchmarks, but if you actually analyse the java code where java beats or is comparable with C&#x2F;C++ you&#x27;re going to see zero object allocations.</i><p>I&#x27;ve noticed that tends to be true in general for benchmarks of high-level languages which show them performing as well as or sometimes even better than C&#x2F;C++ --- the code performs so well because it&#x27;s essentially using none of the other language features that most code in the language does. I touch upon this in my other comment here about culture: the language theoretically allows you to write quite efficient code, but it doesn&#x27;t look &quot;idiomatic&quot; or perhaps isn&#x27;t a &quot;best practice&quot;, so it&#x27;s discouraged and isn&#x27;t done. The entire dogma of avoiding any optimisation compounds this problem even more, since once programmers finally realise they have performance issues, they&#x27;ve already created such complex and inefficient code that it&#x27;s even harder to do any optimisation on.<p>On the other hand, idiomatic C tends to be written in a simple and straightforward style that is naturally quite efficient already. C++ is similar, although templates, OOP, and all the other new features can lead to inefficient code if not used in moderation.<p>I suppose the ultimate example of what could be called &quot;intrinsically efficient&quot; is assembly language. With Asm, every instruction, every byte you can save from typing is one the machine also doesn&#x27;t have to execute, so you&#x27;re basically forced to optimise as you write. There&#x27;s certainly no desire to overengineer things, simply because of the extreme tedium and futility of doing so. With no IDE to help you generate classes and autocomplete indirections, it really changes your perspective of what constitutes efficient code.