This alone is enough to tell you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's not even about the ambiguous usage of the word "faster".
There is no way for performance claims that are
a) this accurate,
b) this small,
to possibly be real.
You certainly just cherry-picked favorable benchmarks.
Ah, here it is: "Over sixteen benchmarks Goose runs at about...". First, let's make this statement actually correct: "Over sixteen microbenchmarks Goose runs at about...".
That's not the same statement as "1.16x faster than C++ and 1.12x than safe Rust". Not by a mile.
You need a test suite comprised of a wide variety of real world programs, not 16 microbenchmarks, possibly specifically chosen to play to the strengths of your language.
You can't fit all that in the title of a post. The readme is very clear about the claim. There's no way to get a wide variety of real world program benchmarks for a brand new language. You can look at the benchmarks and determine if you think they're fair.
This alone is enough to tell you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's not even about the ambiguous usage of the word "faster".
There is no way for performance claims that are
a) this accurate,
b) this small,
to possibly be real.
You certainly just cherry-picked favorable benchmarks.
Ah, here it is: "Over sixteen benchmarks Goose runs at about...". First, let's make this statement actually correct: "Over sixteen microbenchmarks Goose runs at about...".
That's not the same statement as "1.16x faster than C++ and 1.12x than safe Rust". Not by a mile.
You need a test suite comprised of a wide variety of real world programs, not 16 microbenchmarks, possibly specifically chosen to play to the strengths of your language.