I did take your comments seriously. Have you taken my point-by-point response seriously? I acknowledged your "criticisms" that "there used to be more languages

I did take your comments seriously. Have you taken my point-by-point response seriously? I acknowledged your "criticisms" that "there used to be more languages and runtimes shown" and that "you used to be able to see examples of run-times on multiple machines". Do you acknowledge that those "criticisms" sound a lot like someone saying — give me more free stuff ? > …contributors could explicitly optimize for either single-threaded or multi-threaded… They still can; have you noticed that the Chapel programs are optimized for program size? > …single-threaded … will likely smoke a locking multi-threaded… Look at the programs — https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/spectralnorm-cpu.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... 15.82 (busy) Ada 2012 GNAT #3 (15.79 cpu) 15.89 (busy) Ada 2012 GNAT (15.69 cpu) 15.84 (busy) Free Pascal #2 (15.82 cpu) 16.15 (busy) Free Pascal (15.98 cpu) https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/measurements/fpascal.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...