Previous benchmark claims were incorrect:
- Claimed Lux "beats Rust and Zig" - this was false
- C backend has bugs and wasn't actually working
- Comparison used unfair optimization flags
Actual measurements (fib 35):
- C (gcc -O3): 0.028s
- Rust (-C opt-level=3 -C lto): 0.041s
- Zig (ReleaseFast): 0.046s
- Lux (interpreter): 0.254s
Lux is ~9x slower than C, which is expected for a
tree-walking interpreter. This is honest and comparable
to other interpreted languages without JIT.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Brandon Lucas
0cf8f2a4a2