Quoting from the web site: "The annual EuroSciPy Conferences allows participants from academic, commercial, and governmental organizations to: showcase their la

Quoting from the web site: "The annual EuroSciPy Conferences allows participants from academic, commercial, and governmental organizations to: showcase their latest Scientific Python projects, learn from skilled users and developers, and collaborate on code development." It isn't a conference which requires rigorous submissions. You say "very high quality". I used "rigorous" because quality has many dimensions. I believe people go to EuroSciPy in part to learn which other tools exist, and to learn from the experience of others. This paper appears to have that audience in mind. It's partially an experience paper, and discusses things like available documentation and the stage of development of the tools (eg, Falcon is in early development, and crashed on the test code). If someone came to the conference, interested in performance (which is most of the audience) but not in NumPy (which is a smaller number), then this is a high quality paper for this type of conference for guiding them on which Python implementations to prioritize, even if the benchmark per se were ignored. You quoted where the abstract said "an opportunity for every Python runtime to prove its strength in optimization". I can see how that might be interpreted as a very broad benchmark. But it earlier mentioned "Python library FatGHol ... moduli space of Riemann surfaces" and later says "This paper compares the results and experiences from running FatGHol with different Python runtimes", so I think you're reading too much into that quote. My code is also non-numeric scientific code. It's extremely unlikely that I would understand the algorithm in that code, or that the mix of instructions would match my code. I would skip the extra details as irrelevant to my interests. Whereas the other points, like how Nuitka's claim that it "create[s] the most efficient native code from this. This means to be fast with the basic Python object handling." has at least one real-world counter-example, and like how PyPy can use a lot of memory, again affects my weights about how I might evaluate the available options. Do you seriously think that one or two pages more would have had a significant effect on the comments on HN or Reddit? For that matter, I see eight comments total on HN about the paper, including mine and your three. I don't see (in HN) peopling regard it as a 'definitive resource', but only a resource. I don't read Reddit so can't say anything what's going on there, but surely complaining here about Reddit doesn't help. Also, the paper was 4 1/2 pages long. You want the author to spend about 30% longer to write the paper, which I think is excessive.