The thesis of my comment was that we should be surprised that any language does poorly on this benchmark, particularly ones that have similar kinds of targeting, and that if we cared about this benchmark (and I claim we don't), we should all pitch in, possibly upstream to fix various languages and their standard libraries to nail this benchmark. However, I also believe the rules of this benchmark are awkward and even flawed, and that it isn't clear to me that it is worth anyone's time to do that.

I am not lamenting that someone should spend more time on this: I am lamenting that tons of people seem to care about it at all, it is not a "microbenchmark" (as some are calling it), and I think the main lesson we can learn from it is "there is something subtely wrong, either with the implementation that was contributed for this benchmark, the language's runtime, or it's standard library", as given these rules we really should expect every language to be similarly in performance.

And so, if we all cared about this benchmark, I bet we could figure out what is going on and get every open source language down under 25s. Past that point, I think the rules are such that this isn't even a fun game much less a useful metric of anything worth measuring, and you are probably wasting your time contributing. I guess, to make this subthread go somewhere: why do you disagree?