3 ms·

I don't think the author was claiming that this is a rigorous benchmark, but I can see how it might look that way. I agree that it could have been framed a bit

I don't think the author was claiming that this is a rigorous benchmark, but I can see how it might look that way. I agree that it could have been framed a bit better, but I also don't think the author was trying to make any bold declarations. The technical aspects of the article are interesting and well written, but only if it is not viewed as an exercise in rigorous benchmarking. The context here was that the Rust program was a reimplementation of an existing C program, as part of an effort to learn Rust.

gshrikant 8y ago
Unfortunately, that's not entirely accurate. The problem with language level benchmarking is that the benchmarks are only as good as their implementations and while I agree that different languages encourage different kinds of idioms it seems only fair to use the same data structure/technique when the language offers that choice (as Rust does with intrusive data structures). The Rust program was not a faithful reimplementation as the author concedes. I expected a more closer comparison given the somewhat broad title of the article. Claiming the perf benefit came out of the thinking encouraged by the language is okay but debatable.