How about extending this to comparing programming language efficiency from a developer's standpoint, looking at bytes of code, versus the execution time?

I took the source code file size from the repository, and the runtime from the blog post.

Then I made an arbitrary overall "PAIN SCORE" (lower is better) by multiplying code size * runtime. I suggest this is a worthwhile metric simply because lower is better on both axes, but of course, in the "real world" there will be different economic costs to CPU time and developer time depending on the use case. Here's the sorted results, from least "pain" to most:

    LANGUAGE   FILENAME        CODE SIZE      RUNTIME     PAIN SCORE (LOWER IS BETTER)
    Shell      optimized.sh      75 bytes      1.83 s      137.25
    Crystal    simple.cr        240 bytes      1.29 s      309.6
    Nim        simple.nim       424 bytes      0.77 s      326.48
    Python     simple.py        208 bytes      2.21 s      459.68
    Ruby       simple.rb        175 bytes      3.17 s      554.75
    Go         optimized.go    1514 bytes      0.40 s      605.6
    Python     optimized.py     464 bytes      1.33 s      617.12
    Zig        optimized.zig   2688 bytes      0.24 s      645.12
    Go         simple.go        688 bytes      1.12 s      770.56
    Zig        simple.zig      1394 bytes      0.55 s      766.7
    Nim        optimized.nim   1683 bytes      0.49 s      824.67
    Shell      simple.sh         60 bytes     14.81 s      888.6
    Ruby       optimized.rb     401 bytes      2.47 s      990.47
    JavaScript simple.js        532 bytes      1.88 s     1000.16
    C          optimized.c     4360 bytes      0.23 s     1002.80
    Rust       optimized.rs    3065 bytes      0.43 s     1317.95
    Swift      simple.swift     317 bytes      4.23 s     1340.91
    JavaScript optimized.js    1501 bytes      1.10 s     1651.1
    C          simple.c        2735 bytes      0.96 s     2625.6
    Rust       simple.rs       2239 bytes      1.38 s     3089.82

Sorting only by code size, the most concise implementations are: Shell, Ruby, Python, Crystal. Nobody was aiming to play code golf (i.e. minimize source code size), so these are fairly straightforward, idiomatic, readable implementations.

I am definitely a Crystal fan, in fact this afternoon I'm continuing to implement suggestions from my recent Show HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081943 comments. :)