I'm a Zig fan and all, but you should probably check if your C/C++/Rust code uses the equivalent of "-march=native", that might already be responsible for most of the performance difference between those and Zig - they all use the same LLVM optimization passes after all, so excluding obvious implementation differences (like doing excessive heap allocations) there isn't any reason why one would be faster than the other.
The point was typical, typical Rust code is using Vec<>, typical Zig code is using arenas. Typical Rust code is using smart pointers, typical Zig/C code prefers plain, copyable structs.
It is 100% possible to use such style in Rust/C++ (and then the performance will be same or maybe even in favor of rust, it might be the case) but people usually do not do that.
Zig is in the same ballpark as the ones mentioned above, so flohofwoe is right. But nevertheless I do think that cztomsik's point also still stands: how hard it is to make something fast will end up impacting the performance characteristics of the average program and library out there, and Zig does make it easier to write performant code than some other languages.
> Zig can and does win plenty of those benchmarks, but ultimately it boils down to who is it that gets nerdsniped into working on a specific challenge.
That was a faulty benchmark with a simple unnatural footgun that the Rust people overlooked. I don't think it supports your claim that benchmarks typically boil down to who is it that gets nerdsniped into them. Sure, it can happen, it happened at least once, but in general?
