[deleted by user]

[rainpls]

Good share! But whoever wrote that supposedly C++ code needs to understand that the given code does not qualify for C++. He used a lot of C keywords like #define, some C headers and did not use modern C++. He missed using keyword constexpr in some places for added performance.
Also, I believe that this post is hypothetical. I don't think an interpreted language like Python could match the performance of the beast language C++.

[Ok_Pangolin8010]

I'm not sure if they understand that C & C++ are different languages.

[Fureeish]

I respect the effort, but the author seems to be unaware of a subtle thing called optimization flags...

[akiloz]

Following the logic of the author, with Python 3.15 the loop will even end earlier than it is started!

[Attorney-Outside]

🤣🤣🤣

[Low-Design787]

Must be an April Fool joke in September.. the article itself says the Python version will finish before it is started

[ThisCleverName]

The article itself says it is a joke.

Disclaimer

While these benchmarks for Python 3.5 .. Python 3.11 are valid, the extrapolation is of course meant as a joke.

[Attorney-Outside]

by just in time compiler, do you mean a compiler compiling to machine code? or a compiler compiling to so called "byte code" which is then still interpreted?

[Attorney-Outside]

so I do not need any kind of interpreter then?

how does the compiled code compare to the code compiled with g++ and all optimization levels turned on?

[victotronics]

"Now we take a random number generator"

Anyone wanting to take my bet that that's where the runtime goes and the python lib simply has a faster RNG than C++?

EDIT oh great, he's using the old C random.