Comment by jacquesm

> It seems like you think that some shadowy cabal somewhere decided to differentiate systems languages from managed languages and keep them divided. That is not the case.

You could have made that point without the strawman, and what a ridiculous thing to say anyway.

> The distinction describes how the language has been implemented, which is based on the choices of the language authors alone, and is usually down to practical considerations about how to implement the thing at all.

That is so obvious I do not understand what point you are trying to make here.

> Saying "There should be no such difference." is a bit like saying bicycles should be allowed on the highway and semi trucks should be accepted on walking paths. The difference is inherent in the thing. A result of how they were built. And what they can and can't accomplish as a result.

No, the error is yours: you are interpreting my sentence in a way that is blatantly wrong and then argue with the outcome. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be 'trucks or bicycles' in terms of programming languages. What I'm saying is that the boundary between where you use a 'systems programming language' and where you use an 'application programming language' is artificial and that we are using too much of the former in a place where we probably should be using the latter.