I tend to get pedantic about it given my background in compiler design.
I find sad that young generations mix languages with implementations and get wrong concepts that a certain language can only be implemented in a specific way.
> I find sad that young generations mix languages with implementations and get wrong concepts that a certain language can only be implemented in a specific way.
Yes, but the parent that you responded to wasn't really susceptible to this. It's quite natural to speak of the "performance properties of Language X" as if you were to say, "the performance properties of the most widely used implementation of Language X."
English doesn't lend itself well to precision. Therefore, people rely on the ability of others to use contextual clues to infer assumptions.
It's pretty clear in this case what point the parent was trying to convey.
And I'm not sure what youth has to do with any of this.
> And I'm not sure what youth has to do with any of this.
I am already old enough to have coded Z80 assembly back in the day and I see this mix of languages and implementations mostly around youth wannabe programmers.
And I have seen the "mix up" (if you can even call it that) among all programmers. Mostly for the reasons that I've already outlined. (i.e., there may not be a mix up if people are relying on their readers to infer assumptions through context.)
However, reality is that most languages' ecosystems and performances are tightly connected to one or two implementations.