Hi, no need to be so abrasive about it. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to cri

Hi, no need to be so abrasive about it. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Python's zip function returns a generator. A generator in zig would look like a function pointer with a closure. If zig were to implement the Python-style "zip" function, constructing the closure, and iterating over the generator, would be significantly slower than the naked "just a for loop" that we see in TFA. And that's not even considering the tuple construction (oops, now we need an allocator) & unpacking. Ergo, the zig-style "syntactical zip" is higher performance than the Python-style "functional zip". Even when you cut through the baseline performance differences between the languages.