[refulgentis]

Got the same general impression, TL;DR: wrote a benchmark article without...running it? Then you conclude with "the language I use is faster!!!" based on a one-off run on your machine, which surely isn't the same machine Mojo used to run bechmarks for their website copy?

It's odd to read something that's pretty well-versed with some relatively complex CS concepts, i.e. it's not just a PhD with a blank text editor. But simultaneously, makes egregiously obvious mistakes that I wouldn't expect any college graduate to roll with.

There's a certain type, and I don't know what name to give it, especially because I certainly don't want to give it a condescending name. I call it "data scientist types" when I'm in person with someone who I trust to give me some verbal rope.

Software really feels like it ate everything and everyone. So you end up with insanely bright people who do software engineering as part of their job, but miss some pieces you expect from trad software engineering.

[kescobo]

>TL;DR: wrote a benchmark article without...running it?

He benchmarks against the rust implementation, which, unless benchmarks have zero meaning, should be sufficient to get a general sense of the scale of the difference. The post is obviously not meant as the last word on this benchmark, it's meant to show that the benchmark is kinda meaningless.

>Then you conclude with "the language I use is faster!!!"

If this is your take-home from the post, it's pretty clear you didn't read it, or your reading comprehension needs some work. That sentence was obviously facetious, poking a little fun at the author of the original piece.

[refulgentis]

> He benchmarks against the rust implementation.

No he doesn't.

The post is Mojo for Bioinformatics.

They ran a completely different library, in a different language, on their machine.

They did not run anything in Mojo.

You are asserting one data point of a Rust bioinformatics library on a random machine contributes information about Mojo, and berating me about reading comprehension to cling to that.

> If this is...

"If this is your take-home from my post, it's pretty clear you didn't read it, or your reading comprehension needs some work. That sentence was obviously facetious, poking a little fun at the author of the original piece."

^ seriously, right back at you. With a wink, and hopeful understanding I'm saying subtly "relax partner." Your first reaction should be curiosity when you're confused, not name-calling.