Thanks for your comment.
1 - Yes, you are right about the timing, that's why I've pointed out that "we should not forget that this toy example is simple" in my post. In fact, the main focus of my post is the prototyping abilities instead of timing, and when I wrote the post I was thinking whether I should exclude the runtime in my post, or should I include it but pointing out that it is not really a good indicator for this case. Since timing is always what people eager to see, and people may even test it themselves especially in this simple case with just a few lines of codes at the appendix. Finally, I decided to include the runtime and point out the above consideration so that all of us are aware.
2 and 3 - The purpose of this post is to see the prototyping abilities of different approaches, from high to low level. This is why I picked these three languages/libraries including Numpy. I hope the codes in the appendix would help people to have some quick insight on how the tools abstract different concepts and can make good reference when comparing to the summary table. Perhaps in the future, we can have a comparison with another set of approaches when we want to look at another angle.
