Just posting numbers without commentary doesn't seem that useful. Per the GitHub "Note that implementations might be using different optimizations, e.g. with or w/o multithreading, please do read the source code to check if it's a fair comparision or not."

I think this shows that Zig isn't a slow language despite its relative youth, but it'd be much more useful if someone did the work to look through the code and provide commentary on comparable the entries are.

The optimizations both looked correct. Both told the compiler to target broadwell. The fastest nbody was rust, but it was non-portably using x86 intrinsics. Zig has explicit simd vectors in the stdlib and so did better than the portable explicit simd of the third place rust entry. However, zig is using optimized float mode equivalent to gcc ffastmath so it is almost certainly getting the wrong answers simce it didn't use the iterative sqrt trick. https://github.com/hanabi1224/Programming-Language-Benchmark...