I'm comparing 2 technologies and in order to reach a recommendation for which one to use by a company. Technology A's code is interpreted while technology B's code is compiled to machine code. In my comparison I state that tech B in general would have better performance since it doesn't have the additional overhead of the interpretation process. I also state that since a program could be written in many ways it is still possible a program written in tech A could outperform one written in tech B.

When I submitted this report for review, the reviewer stated that I offered no clear reason why in general the overhead of the interpretation process would be large enough that we could conclude that tech B's performance would be better.

So my question is can we ever say anything about the performance of compiled/interpreted technologies? If we can say compiled is generally faster then interpreted, how could I convince the reviewer of my point?

I'm comparing two technologies in order to reach a recommendation for which one should be used by a company. Technology A's code is interpreted while technology B's code is compiled to machine code. In my comparison I state that tech B in general would have better performance since it doesn't have the additional overhead of the interpretation process. I also state that since a program could be written in many ways it is still possible a program written in tech A could outperform one written in tech B.

When I submitted this report for review, the reviewer stated that I offered no clear reason why in general the overhead of the interpretation process would be large enough that we could conclude that tech B's performance would be better.

So my question is can we ever say anything about the performance of compiled/interpreted technologies? If we can say compiled is generally faster then interpreted, how could I convince the reviewer of my point?

I'm comparing 2 technologies and in order to reach a recommendation for which one to use by a company. Technology A's code is interpreted while technology B's code is compiled to machine code. In my comparison I state that tech B in general would have better performance since it doesn't have the additional overhead of the interpretation process. I also state that since a program could be written in many ways it is still possible a program written in tech A could outperform one written in tech B.

When I submitted this report for review, the reviewer stated that I offered no clear reason why in general the overhead of the interpretation process would be large enough that we could conclude that tech B's performance would be better.

So my question is can we ever say anything about the performance of compiled/interpreted technologies? If we can say compiled is generally faster then interpreted, how could I convince the reviewer of my point?

EDIT: After reading all the answers and comment I conclude that the only correct thing to state about performance in the report would then be that I believe both technologies to offer sufficient performance (based on pocs). The final recommendation on which technology to use should be based on other features and aspects of the technologies.

I'm comparing 2 technologies and in order to reach a recommendation for which one to use by a company. Technology A's code is interpreted while technology B's code is compiled to machine code. In my comparison I state that tech B in general would have better performance since it doesn't have the additional overhead of the interpretation process. I also state that since a program could be written in many ways it is still possible a program written in tech A could outperform one written in tech B.

When I submitted this report for review, the reviewer stated that I offered no clear reason why in general the overhead of the interpretation process would be large enough that we could conclude that tech B's performance would be better.

So my question is can we ever say anything about the performance of compiled/interpreted technologies? If we can say compiled is generally faster then interpreted, how could I convince the reviewer of my point?