87
C is one of the most energy saving language
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
87 points (86.6% liked)
Programming
22301 readers
40 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For those who don't want to open threads, it's a link to a paper on energy efficiency of programming languages.
Results
Also the difference between TS and JS doesn't make sense at first glance. 🤷♂️ I guess I need to read the research.
My first thought is perhaps the TS is not targeting ESNext so they're getting hit with polyfills or something
It does, the "compiler" adds a bunch of extra garbage for extra safety that really does have an impact.
I thought the idea of TS is that it strongly types everything so that the JS interpreter doesn't waste all of its time trying to figure out the best way to store a variable in RAM.
TS is compiled to JS, so the JS interpreter isn't privy to the type information. TS is basically a robust static analysis tool
The code is ultimately ran in a JS interpreter. AFAIK TS transpiles into JS, there's no TS specific interpreter. But such a huge difference is unexpected to me.
Care to elaborate?
Only if you choose a lower language level as the target. Given these results I suspect the researchers had it output JS for something like ES5, meaning a bunch of polyfills for old browsers that they didn't include in the JS-native implementation..
I guess we can take the overhead of rust considering all the advantages. Go however... can't even.
Even Haskell is higher on the list than Go, which surprises me a lot
But Go has go faster stripes in the logo! Google wouldn't make false advertising, would they?
Now we just need a language with flames in the logq
For Lua I think it's just for the interpreted version, I've heard that LuaJIT is amazingly fast (comparable to C++ code), and that's what for example Löve (game engine) uses, and probably many other projects as well.
I would be interested in how things like MATLAB and octave compare to R and python. But I guess it doesn't matter as much because the relative time of those being run in a data analysis or research context is probably relatively low compared to production code.
Is there a lot of computation-intensive code being written in pure Python? My impression was that the numpy/pandas/polars etc kind of stuff was powered by languages like fortran, rust and c++.
The popular well crafted ones are, but not all are well crafted.
WASM would be interesting as well, because lots of stuff can be compiled to it to run on the web
Indeed, here's an example - my climate-system model web-app, written in scala running (mainly) in wasm
(note: that was compiled with scala-js 1.17, they say latest 1.19 does wasm faster, I didn't yet compare).
[ Edit: note wasm variant only works with most recent browsers, maybe with experimental options set - if not try without ?wasm ]
I have no clue what I am looking at but it is absolutely mesmerizing.
Oh, it's designed for a big desktop screen, although it just happens to work on mobile devices too - their compute power is enough, but to understand the interactions of complex systems, we need space.
Looking at the Energy/Time ratios (lower is better) on page 15 is also interesting, it gives an idea of how "power hungry per CPU cycle" each language might be. Python's very high
Every time I get surprised by the efficiency of Lisp! I guess they mean Common Lisp there, not Clojure or any modern dialect.
For Haskell to land that low on the list tells me they either couldn't find a good Haskell programmer and/or weren't using GHC.
Does the paper take into account the energy required to compile the code, the complexity of debugging and thus the required re-compilations after making small changes? Because IMHO that should all be part of the equation.
It's a good question, but I think the amount of time spent compiling a language is going to be pretty tiny compared to the amount of time the application is running.
Still - "energy efficiency" may be the worst metric to use when choosing a language.
Energy efficiency strongly correlates to datacentre costs.
And battery costs, including charging time, for a lot of devices. Users generally aren't happy with devices that run out of juice all the time.
They compile each benchmark solution as needed, following the CLBG guidelines, but they do not measure or report the energy consumed during the compilation step.
Time to write our own paper with regex and compiler flags.