▲ 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
[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) They chose an “optimized” set of algorithms from “The Computer Language Benchmarks Game” to produce results for well-optimized code in each language. Honestly that's all you need to know to throw this paper away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a very heavily gamed benchmark. The most frequent issues I've seen are: Different uses of multi-threading - some submissions use it, some don't. Different algorithms for the same problem. Calling into C libraries to do the actual work. Lots of the Python submissions do this. They've finally started labelling stupid submissions with "contentious" labels at least, but not when this study was done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They provide the specific implementations used here: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages I dislike the "I thought of something that may be an issue therefore just dismiss all of the work without thinking" approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, but if you take away the hard numbers from this (which you should) all you're left with is what we all already knew from experience: fast languages are more energy efficient, C, Rust, Go, Java etc. are fast; Python, Ruby etc. are super slow. It doesn't add anything at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a very heavily gamed benchmark. The most frequent issues I've seen are: Different uses of multi-threading - some submissions use it, some don't. Different algorithms for the same problem. Calling into C libraries to do the actual work. Lots of the Python submissions do this. They've finally started labelling stupid submissions with "contentious" labels at least, but not when this study was done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They provide the specific implementations used here: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages I dislike the "I thought of something that may be an issue therefore just dismiss all of the work without thinking" approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, but if you take away the hard numbers from this (which you should) all you're left with is what we all already knew from experience: fast languages are more energy efficient, C, Rust, Go, Java etc. are fast; Python, Ruby etc. are super slow. It doesn't add anything at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a very heavily gamed benchmark. The most frequent issues I've seen are: Different uses of multi-threading - some submissions use it, some don't. Different algorithms for the same problem. Calling into C libraries to do the actual work. Lots of the Python submissions do this. They've finally started labelling stupid submissions with "contentious" labels at least, but not when this study was done. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They provide the specific implementations used here: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages I dislike the "I thought of something that may be an issue therefore just dismiss all of the work without thinking" approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, but if you take away the hard numbers from this (which you should) all you're left with is what we all already knew from experience: fast languages are more energy efficient, C, Rust, Go, Java etc. are fast; Python, Ruby etc. are super slow. It doesn't add anything at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) They provide the specific implementations used here: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages I dislike the "I thought of something that may be an issue therefore just dismiss all of the work without thinking" approach. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, but if you take away the hard numbers from this (which you should) all you're left with is what we all already knew from experience: fast languages are more energy efficient, C, Rust, Go, Java etc. are fast; Python, Ruby etc. are super slow. It doesn't add anything at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) I agree, but if you take away the hard numbers from this (which you should) all you're left with is what we all already knew from experience: fast languages are more energy efficient, C, Rust, Go, Java etc. are fast; Python, Ruby etc. are super slow. It doesn't add anything at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* Well... No. You're reading the title. Read the document. "We all know" is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it's really true. Just assuming it is isn't knowledge, it's guessing. Second - it's not always true: for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time. Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage. permalink fedilink source parent