(Some languages with bad semantics for that might still get fast, but the language itself isn't designed to help that. JS for example was made fast, but with tons of effort but with tons of money and man-centuries thrown in by Google, Apple, Mozilla, MS, not the kind of recources available to most languages. So, I'd call a language whose semantics afford optimization a fast language).
Runtime complexity (e.g. "zero overhead" vs "lotsa overhead" features).
Also, I find the "language vs compiler" dicthotomy pedantic and tedious. For most languages and most use cases, there's a single dominant canonical version, e.g. CPython, Matz's Ruby, Oracle's Java.
Just because there are niche other implementations all 10 people use doesn't change the fact that 90% of users will be on the canonical implementation, and for them, THAT's synonymous with the language, not just some abstract spec.
Matz's Ruby MRI?
No — "Since Ruby 2.6 introduced MJIT in 2018, its performance greatly improved"
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/11/09/ruby-3-1-0-prev...
There's nothing stopping anyone from writing a fully standards compliant C interpreter that will have considerably slower process execution after all. In fact, a quick search shows that it's been done many times, for example this[1].
"How many times slower, the fastest benchmark programs for selected programming language implementations are, compared to the fastest written in any of the programming languages."
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...