Also the difference between TS and JS doesn't make sense at first glance. 🤷‍♂️ I guess I need to read the research.

I guess we can take the overhead of rust considering all the advantages. Go however... can't even.

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.

WASM would be interesting as well, because lots of stuff can be compiled to it to run on the web

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.

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.

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.