paro_nej

Holy hell?

Beating gcc/clang/icc is not a trivial task. One can engineer the pair `{benchmark compiler pass}` in such a manner that they show a speedup, but over a benchmark suite say like the SPEC suite, general community consensus is that it is very difficult and their paper doesn't reveal that they've found one.

My claim is that there is no additional information that Python provides as opposed to C that would make it faster. And hence, the only conclusion I have is either they have supercharged their compiler for that particular benchmark OR they have chosen to handicap C as once can express the computation in C that emits the same assembly that they lowered to and hence my point on handicapping the C benchmark.

They aren't JIT. They're doing AoT AFAICT.

> Faster than the speed of C

One must note that this is impossible, unless you have chosen to handicap the C-implementations while benchmarking. Borderline unethical IMO to put forth such a claim.

> In my case about 50% of the test code is just boilerplate

Why not replace it with a function call?

> Wang and his colleagues have found that big teams are more likely to produce incremental than disruptive science

Interesting observation.

Disruptive work doesn't necessarily need to disagree with previous results.

The pricing model at https://www.monsterwriter.app/ says:

> Publish an article about MonsterWriter. Include a link to this website and get a license for free.

For postdocs, the situation is even worse. Postdocs typically get paid ~1.5x that of a PhD student. And in some fields that are closer to the Basic Sciences, one (virtually) cannot land a permanent research position without spending 2+ years as a PostDoc research associate. The current generation of professors are the worst folks when it comes to the reasoning about sustainability of research in their field.

FWIW, texmacs files are encoded like any other markup language. This makes it the texmacs files very easy for any git-fu.