> No human can write better code than LLMs.

Bold claim...

I had a feeling when I read the title and then started reading the post, "this person must be young, probably a student." I think it's ironic that they're using such unscientific terminology like "fastest" given their background https://xiangpeng.systems/. So clearly, it's in the interest of marketing. Maybe some kind of job advertising/resume thing.

I can almost guarantee that someone has built a custom btree for their specific domain which is faster than this; and that they probably have some or all of the techniques used in this library that are the main contributors to performance, as well. Prefetching is probably the main one they'll claim, and I know personally of some proprietary implementations which have it.

I would like to see some more humility, but I suppose that when you've already resigned your own potential to being below an LLM, then what's the point.

It's not possible or useful for them to grow anymore. Some new frontier model next week will outdo whatever ephemerally useful project this person writes, right? That's the logic?

Especially since it's trivially proved wrong by inspecting the code. It's invariably awful.

This is only a statement that could be written by someone that doesn't read the code.

I wish his llms included sanakirja* in the comparisons, which has some (human made) speed claims*.

* https://docs.rs/sanakirja-core

* https://pijul.org/posts/2021-02-06-rethinking-sanakirja#benc...

.gh is Ghana, not Greenland

oops :)

I misread.

Thanks for the correction.

It's not a subset of python.

For instance this program works in this interpreter, but not in python:

    fxx i in rxxxx(10):
        pxxxx(i)

That isn't part of the language though. That's just input that it doesn't handle properly. The author acknowledged it lacks error handling.