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?

>>17
Rust is the only one of the modern ``We're too cool for C'' languages that has a chance at not being utter shit, honestly. Optional GC means it might actually be usable for systems programming, and sure, the syntax is shit, but that never stopped your favorite. What it will need is a good compiler, a good library strategy (as in, I can deploy libs written in rust, plug in executables written in rust, and not even think about installing a rust runtime/compiler/dancing cursor set on the target machine).

They'll also need a good spec so that a competing implementation can spring up. But hell, all you need for that is a bunch of drooling retards and a ping-pong table. It worked for Ruby, after all.