> Anyone can imagine a programing language that is as fast as C and as dynamic as Lisp, but when you sit down and think through what those goals entail, you realize the design becomes contradictory.

Ignoring the usual LLM rant, that's an interesting observation. Those conflicting goals reflect a problem that comes up quite often - the conflict between efficient volume production and flexibility. It's solvable for programming languages. That's what just-in-time compilers are for. Anything can change, but in practice, most things don't change that often. It's a caching problem.

This hits much harder in manufacturing. An extreme case is what was once called "Detroit automation" - totally specialized lines of machine tools that could make V8 auto engines all day and all night with very little human attention. But that's all they could make. Even switching to a V6 or a different cylinder size required new equipment. The other extreme is 3D printing in metal. It works, but it's so slow it's only useful for high-value items. Space-X makes Raptor engines that way. Nobody makes auto engine blocks that way.

A decade ago, there was a huge enthusiasm for 3D printing for making everything. That's declined. It's become another machine in the machine shop. It works, but if you want to bang out thousands of something, injection molding or stamping is far faster. There's a sizable tooling cost, and then each item is cheap. This is the tradeoff between efficiency and dynamics.

A year or two ago, someone posted a link on HN to a video of someone making a small screw on a lathe. Nobody does that except out of desperate need for a non-standard part. Small screws are made by special purpose machines that bang them out at machine-gun speeds. American culture does not know this any more. Too few Americans today have been inside manufacturing plants. The culture has forgotten where stuff comes from.