The binary size tells you ~nothing about how good it is at effectively utilizing L1 icache. In fact, optimizations regularly increase binary size because it tur

The binary size tells you ~nothing about how good it is at effectively utilizing L1 icache. In fact, optimizations regularly increase binary size because it turns out inlining to avoid function calls can be even more important. See also loop unrolling, SIMD paths, etc... I'm more likely to believe Zig's "small binaries" are more from lack of optimizations than some obsessive focus on L1 icache density. Which, given it's not a 1.0 language, isn't something that can be held against Zig. But it'd hardly be a strength, either.