Why are there high level languages?

Why the hell would anyone use Python or Ruby over C. The software should be nice to use. It's not nice when the program is slow as fuck.

Their dynamic nature makes debugging software increasingly hard. Basically developing with these higher level languages takes more time than with C.

Every program should be written in C. In most cases, it would be good to also optimize tight loops with Assembly. This way programs would be fast and fun to use.

Languages such as C# and Java have no point at all. They are essentially crippled versions of C. Limited pointers and limited memory management. The virtual machine takes forever to JIT-optimize the code, thus harming the user experience. Not to mention GC, which slows everything down, providing nothing useful in return. GC is shit.

Then there are these C++-retards. Sure, you can in theory make as fast C++-code as C-code, but is it really worth it? Every C++ program in practice is slower, harder to debug, and harder to develop.

Functional languages, such as Haskell are no answer to problem. They abstract the hardware to hell and are very slow in practice.

So tell me: Why is C and Assembly not used for every program today?

>>31

meanwhile, an intelligent individual programmer can write a reasonably efficient and non-bloated tool in a HLL without having to worry which of the similarly named functions (strcpy, strncpy, strncpy_s, strncpy_c, memcpy or whatever else) to use so that the string is still treated like string and does not cause buffer overflows.

First of all, the functions ending in _s are a scam by Microsoft.
And secondly, Java, a prominent and popular 'HLL', has like 7 (wild guess, but it has things like string builders and buffers and immutable strings and what not) or so different string types. Admittedly, most HLLs probably fare better than this, but most of them still worse than C. Even C++ will always be more complex than C in this regard (not to mention C++ streams).