▲ 60 ▼ Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency (2021) (www.sciencedirect.com) submitted 1 year ago by pylapp@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments A bit old but still interesting
[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) tldr: faster lang consumes less energy (more or less) opinionated tldr: Java surprisingly good lets goooooooo Javaaaaaaa! python so low, ew permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IllNess@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago Java has been around a really long time and I was still surprised how well it did. I am shocked Fortran didn't do better. I don't code in Fortran. I assumed languages closer machine would do well. permalink fedilink source parent [–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Their conclusion in section 3.1: No, a faster language is not always the most energy efficient. That said, they really seem to be pointing out that there are exceptions to this rule, where the languages that solve a problem most quickly are not the ones that use the least energy doing it. If you step back from the detail of individual algorithms, speed and energy efficiency do seem broadly to vary together, as one would expect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If your target audience says too lazy didn't read - I think the bit that applies like a rule of thumb to most cases is more relevant and has a higher practical knowledge value than the intricate details or an "it depends". (Similar how you can just explain gravity with newton instead of einstein, to make it short, even though it is less precise or technically false) permalink fedilink source parent [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) That was a fascinating discovery. It seems Pascal and Fortran in particular fit into the "faster but less efficient energy-wise" category. I wonder what's going on there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PokerChips@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago What they do have in common is that they are both O.G. languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago Java has been around a really long time and I was still surprised how well it did. I am shocked Fortran didn't do better. I don't code in Fortran. I assumed languages closer machine would do well. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Their conclusion in section 3.1: No, a faster language is not always the most energy efficient. That said, they really seem to be pointing out that there are exceptions to this rule, where the languages that solve a problem most quickly are not the ones that use the least energy doing it. If you step back from the detail of individual algorithms, speed and energy efficiency do seem broadly to vary together, as one would expect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If your target audience says too lazy didn't read - I think the bit that applies like a rule of thumb to most cases is more relevant and has a higher practical knowledge value than the intricate details or an "it depends". (Similar how you can just explain gravity with newton instead of einstein, to make it short, even though it is less precise or technically false) permalink fedilink source parent [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) That was a fascinating discovery. It seems Pascal and Fortran in particular fit into the "faster but less efficient energy-wise" category. I wonder what's going on there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PokerChips@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago What they do have in common is that they are both O.G. languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If your target audience says too lazy didn't read - I think the bit that applies like a rule of thumb to most cases is more relevant and has a higher practical knowledge value than the intricate details or an "it depends". (Similar how you can just explain gravity with newton instead of einstein, to make it short, even though it is less precise or technically false) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) That was a fascinating discovery. It seems Pascal and Fortran in particular fit into the "faster but less efficient energy-wise" category. I wonder what's going on there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PokerChips@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago What they do have in common is that they are both O.G. languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PokerChips@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago What they do have in common is that they are both O.G. languages. permalink fedilink source parent