That's only a valid comparison if the "fastest Java" and "fastest Go" implementations are either the same or at the limit of what each language allows. The mor

That's only a valid comparison if the "fastest Java" and "fastest Go" implementations are either the same or at the limit of what each language allows. The more interesting comparison anyway is performance of the straightforward, idiomatic code, since that's what we all write 99% of the time. Here's the key insight from the article: "Processing the input file in parallel provides a huge win over r1, taking the time from 1 minute 45 seconds to 24.3 seconds. For comparison, the previous “optimised non-parallel” version, solution 7, took 25.8 seconds. So for this case, parallelisation is a bit faster than optimisation – and quite a bit simpler."