I’ve seen the same explanation used for why static and functional languages took off more in Europe while dynamic and object oriented languages took off more in America: American research labs could afford more expensive computers that could handle more runtime overhead. The shining example of this being Xerox PARC with their Alto computer specifically designed to run Smalltalk like a computer from 10 years in the future.
An interesting consideration, but don't functional languages have overhead, too?
Interesting observation. Never noticed that.
This theory would make for an interesting study of cultural preferences of programming languages, static/dynamic, functional/object-oriented, post/pre/infix, etc.