> Yet, C is still slower afterward. If you read the article you'll learn that in the end the author not only states there isn't any practical difference in the

> Yet, C is still slower afterward. If you read the article you'll learn that in the end the author not only states there isn't any practical difference in the results that the author pulled with their ad-hoc test examples but also points out which non-performant choices were intentionally left in the last example that lead to the 40ms difference (which, again, the author states in no uncertain terms is meaningless) I don't know how anyone can look at benchmarks of two ad-hoc tests with one of them being intentionally and openly sub-optimal and from that point automatically jump to conclusions over performance traits of a whole programming language. Crazy stuff.