>>92
You are assuming that dynamic dispatch must do the worst-case legwork in most situations, which is plainly not the case. While the worst case may be worse, when your run-time has dynamically inlined the most common methods, you're nowhere near worst case, and have reduced the cost of method dispatch in most instances to a type-check. So yes, doing more work is slower, but no, merely having the potential to do it does not slow you down if your run-time is good enough to avoid that work. I stress that there will be more clever tricks to come in the future. And it's folly to ignore both known optimizations and future ones, saying, "It can only be implemented this way".