>Again, it's not evidence. Repeating that will not make it so. The code is available, it is fully documented and reproducible. That is not an anecdote. >The

>Again, it's not evidence. Repeating that will not make it so. The code is available, it is fully documented and reproducible. That is not an anecdote. >The compile times are only shown in the Nim board comment, not the Github page, which doesn't benchmark compilation times. Again, where did the numbers come from? So? Evidence does not become anecdote simply because you dislike the source. It doesn't need to be on github. It is where it is because the person who did it put it there. >Secondly, again, it was for a ~70-line program. Do you seriously think that benchmarking the compilation of a 70-line program is statistically valuable? If you want to make the argument that it is weak evidence then do so. But your insistence on dishonestly claiming evidence is anecdote is not constructive. >You completely missed the point of my JVM comment No I did not, I pointed out that it is nonsense. >Actually, I'm going to assume you're trolling. I'll stop here. The laziest cop out possible. Baseless "troll" accusations do not belong in real conversations. Make an effort to contribute.