In what way does it change the meaning? As I read it, "statistically speaking" is just being used as a parenthetical phrase to qualify that they're not trying to argue literally every rust programmer is superior to literally every c++ programmer, and can be safely omitted so long as no one tries to make some dumb argument like "well I've met one bad rust programmer before" or "so and so is a great programmer and they choose c++."

> so and so is a great programmer and they choose c++

Am I crazy? Isn’t that literally exactly what the person I’m responding to was arguing with respect to Carmack?

You cut out part of my full statement which entirely changes the meaning ;)

Here it is in context:

> So I guess John Carmack is inferior and is not an ultimate craftsman.

I didn't realize that their are statistics on what constitutes a craftsman. But I'm willing to change my mind. I'm very curious what those statistics measure though.

Edit: Not to mention like peteradio pointed out, what does a statistically superior programmer look like and where do those statistics live?

An appropriate thing to do in the absence of actual statistics or methodology.