Programming

21924 readers

684 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

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 !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency (2021) (www.sciencedirect.com)

submitted 4 days ago by pylapp@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bit old but still interesting

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Why?

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)