This paper is not really relevant, it's based on the "Computer Language Benchmark Game", so what it measures is a mix of the efficiency/speed of the language and the attention that practitioners of that language gave to the Computer Language Benchmark Games.

What is measured in that table is neither naive code nor the absolute limit you can reach with each language, which means you can't really then compare languages between themselves the way the paper implies.

I think picking professionals at random that practice those languages and ask them to write Computer Language Benchmark Games code would be maybe a bit more representative, but even there you face huge biases.