I don't see much (if any) value in this article. The code was very unidiomatic to start with, and the issues are not just a matter of style - they're very subs

I don't see much (if any) value in this article. The code was very unidiomatic to start with, and the issues are not just a matter of style - they're very substantial, and the code is still unidiomatic. At least one of the conclusions through the article is wrong - the author uses a vector of String references, concluding that the logic can't be easily simplified (because lifetimes are required). This data type is wrong, as owned String's should be used, which don't require any maintenance. This wrong conclusion has actually the side effect of describing a language complexity that doesn't exist (I'm certainly not arguing that Rust is complex, but credit should be due to cases where such complexity doesn't apply). Reconnecting to the beginning, I'm not sure what the value is supposed to be. Benchmark unidiomatically implemented updated to still unidiomatic implementation and flawed algorithm, with at least one improper conclusion, gives results that are not meaningful?