In that case, did you also run rust with the equivalent RUSTFLAGS="-C target-cpu=native"? :)
Perhaps benchmarks should be compared on equal footing, say, with the default release flag or all optimizations turned on, otherwise they're improper.
Perhaps benchmarks should be compared on equal footing, say, with the default release flag or all optimizations turned on, otherwise they're improper.
But really the original author/poster should do some set on his box. I cannot even compile/run all his things. The point of my comment was just to give a reference for how far off impressions can be from build flags. PGO (available to Nim, c++, but maybe not to Rust yet?) is a whole other set of maybe nothing burgers or maybe big improvements.
(But, btw, I could not agree more that all experiments in this entire general space should have various big, bold disclaimers. Over-concluding from these things is rampant.)
For something super jumpy like a simulator, I would find it unsurprising for PGO to make up (or surpass) the difference to Zig in both Nim and C++. 20 years ago there was this ACOVEA [1] project to try to discover great sets of gcc flags that could often find 2X improvements in object code speed for me.
The range from build flags/procedures is often much greater than the supposedly interesting cross-language variation. These things often more measure developer experience/persistence than something intrinsic (and build flags/procedures are only part of that experience/persistence).