I feel like the author has felt obliged to include the full results, which is noble, but it's mostly obscuring the interesting results.
What does it matter if the "cheating" versions are faster, since they're doing something completely different? (OK, in principle it could be the same with an unrealistically magical optimizer.)
Seems to me the key point is that a bunch of high-level constructs in both Rust and Haskell are very nearly as fast as a tight loop in C. That's great!
The versions that are much slower don't seem very surprising, as they involve boxing the ints. (Edit to add: OK, reading more closely, I guess 'Haskell iterator 5' is interesting to dig into.)
What does it matter if the "cheating" versions are faster, since they're doing something completely different? (OK, in principle it could be the same with an unrealistically magical optimizer.)
Seems to me the key point is that a bunch of high-level constructs in both Rust and Haskell are very nearly as fast as a tight loop in C. That's great!
The versions that are much slower don't seem very surprising, as they involve boxing the ints. (Edit to add: OK, reading more closely, I guess 'Haskell iterator 5' is interesting to dig into.)