I was abit annoyed about the benchmarks part; there was no C-based benchmark for comparison, it was not clear how many points were being processed which made the exact time kind of pointless. Also, C and C++ are not the same which the author seems to think.
The part where he lost me was when he said this referring to C:
> Here we tell the interpreter that each point would have exactly two fields, x and y.
Maybe I misread that, but I don't think I did, he was referring to the C struct when he said that. It's one of those glaring mistakes that is hard for me to look past when someone says something like this.
Again, this does not change the fact that structs and dictionaries are very different data structures.
There is a difference between C/C++, but for the purposes of this article it does not matter -- the point I am trying to make is that you would not use a hash table in any of them, would you?
The exact times are kind of pointless indeed, all what matters are the ratios. C benchmark would probably be as well. What I was trying to show was that your runtime comparisons are not necessarily comparing the same things.