Maybe it was negative but how else would you talk about a problem with an article? Every benchmark I seen with actual numbers and code had C++ faster except for one and we were able to check the source to why
> With the lack of context in this article I'm willing to bet rust isn't actually faster than C
into something like
> Without benchmarks, I'm willing to bet rust isn't actually faster than C.
Now that I write that out, it's even shorter! But it's way better. You've made a specific criticism of the article, rather than making a very abstract one.
I'd still say that something this short isn't likely to be upvoted, but it isn't likely to be downvoted like you were. Compare your comment to this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26446830
While it does start with some "I like Rust," imho that wasn't even necessary. It's also more aggressive than you were, but even got some replies. Even though it contained the same sentiment.
I'm not sure if people think benchmarks is just the numbers but I wanted to see source so I can why it was faster and what conditions. C++ is basically an assembler and saying you're faster than assembly is either completely untrue or it'd be poorly written assembly which should be examined.
So essentially I wanted actual code with example numbers