I&#x27;d offer one riff further on all that: indeed, core languages do continue to influence speed on a scale that implementation details can only batter at the edges of.<p>In Ruby&#x27;s case, ObjectSpace is worth taking a peek at for an example: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ruby-doc.org&#x2F;core-2.3.0&#x2F;ObjectSpace.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ruby-doc.org&#x2F;core-2.3.0&#x2F;ObjectSpace.html</a>  We have here a method that <i>counts all objects, by type, in the entire heap</i>.  How, exactly, could one propose to parallelize that?  Not Easily.  Does that leak synchronization needs -- and thus performance implications -- into every layer of GC, scheduling, class&#x2F;module definition loading, and so on?  Yup.<p>Doesn&#x27;t matter how much you approach the pinnacle of excellence in JIT.  Some definitions of operational parameters are just going to be expensive.  Other languages that simply don&#x27;t allow such operations are at a permanent advantage.  There is no such thing as engineering without tradeoffs.