[throwaway894345]

1. btree; see the Rust version which uses a bump allocator for example

2. Doesn't matter whether it's exactly one language.

> You are allowed an opinion about what is or is not compelling.

It's not a matter of opinion. The definitional purpose of benchmarks is to indicate something about reality; if you contrive rules that cause the benchmarks to deviate from reality, they lose their utility as benchmarks. I've demonstrated that the rules are contrived (i.e., they prohibit real-world, idiomatic optimizations), so I think we can say as a matter of fact that these benchmarks aren't useful.

Of course, no one can force anyone else to see reason (but I don't have any interest in talking with unreasonable people).

[igouy]

1. bumpalo: Star 586, Fork 52 — a library, not implement your own custom allocator.

2. You have repeatedly claimed "only for one language".

> I think we can say as a matter of fact…

Apparently that is your opinion.

[throwaway894345]

1. See all of the other arguments in this thread about "contrived rules"

> You have repeatedly claimed "only for one language".

How many languages are in practice prevented from using pre-allocation? How big is the cohort? Does it matter if it's exactly one or if it's two or three? Why are you fixating on this relatively irrelevant point rather than the more substantial point that has been reiterated a dozen times?

> Apparently that is your opinion.

In the same sense that "the sky is blue" is merely my opinion.

[igouy]

> How many languages are in practice prevented from using pre-allocation?

How many provide GC?

The substantial point is that you wish special treatment for Go lang.

> … "the sky is blue" is merely my opinion…

When all can see the vibrant orange red sunset.

[throwaway894345]

Not special treatment, just a rules that allow for idiomatic programs. Of course I’ve said as much a dozen times now and you won’t engage with it, so I don’t expect you to now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯