Putting it further straight, those are both opinions, which are valid to discuss. Whether it works well or not for everyone on those other sites (mentioning them would be nice) or here on CG, is also a matter of opinion. I don't see how it being implemented somewhere else somehow automatically invalidates the points I have mentioned. For all I know, it could be as bad as I have explained.
And in the end, we might just have to agree to disagree on whether artificial handicaps are a good thing or not.
I did not say it was an advantage on scoring well in current conditions, but on speed of development, of course. If the contest lasted 12 or 24 hours, then that advantage might probably translate better on the leaderboards. I have often seen solutions with interpreted languages topping the leaderboards in the beginning/middle of contests.
And I don't think it's an arbitrary bias, it's the reality. If realtime levels of performance is an important factor to consider in a problem, then it definitely will impact the choice of language. If you don't want that, I would rather argue like LBandy just did: design challenges promoting strategy over computation power, instead of going for artificial handicaps.
I am all with you on that. Anything that brings a language up to par to its full potential is a plus for everyone.
This is not a language war. I would love to code my solutions in C# in contests, this is by far my preferred language, but this will not happen if I judge performance will be too much an issue, so I just go with the best tool for the job. It just so happens most challenges are designed in a way that makes C++ be better suited for topping the leaderboards. If you want to argue to change that, I won't stop you.