I don't understand why this comment got +5. It is pretty misguided.
The statement:
> I realized, you can't speed up assembly language -- It's a perfectly optimized language, there's nothing under the hood to tweak
makes some limited sense in some contexts (one could argue that the microcode supporting the assembler on the CPU is repeatedly optimized), but none in this. The IonMonkey JIT does essentially optimize the assembler code[*], by rearranging it in various ways to make it faster. E.g. it takes stuff like this (in javascript, as I have not written assembler in years):
for ( var i = 0; i != 10 ; ++ i ) {
var foo = "bar";
}
and changes it to e.g. this:
for ( var i = 0; i != 10; ++i ) {
}
var foo = "bar";
possibly then this:
var foo = "bar";
This is an optimization and it is performed at assembler level (Again: the above is not meant to be read as JavaScript, but assembler).
The other statement that really sticks out is this:
> A sign of a horribly designed language is that the speed of its implementations can be repeatedly increased "by leaps and bounds"...
This simply highlights that the poster really do not understand the goals behind crossplatform languages, such as Java, Dalvik, JavaScript, lisp, ML, Python, Perl, and so on, or the goals for weakly typed languages.
[*] It works on an abstract representation of the assembler code, but it might as well have been working directly on the assembler, was it not for the fact that this would require it to learn to many assembler variants.