4 ms·
To the naysayers: these languages are either compiled, or will be JIT'ed at runtime. What they will be compiled to will be chip specific binaries-- x86, ARM, wh
by codesushi42 8y ago
To the naysayers: these languages are either compiled, or will be JIT'ed at runtime. What they will be compiled to will be chip specific binaries-- x86, ARM, whatever. The energy usage will be markedly different depending on which chip architecture is chosen, and will no doubt be inconsistent between different architectures and languages.
Or to put it another way. Why do you think mobile devices almost exclusively use ARM? Why do datacenter operators invest heavily in R&D for ASICs instead of engineering new languages or runtimes? Because languages play a secondary role in energy consumption.
This study is just like countless of other meaningless benchmarks seen in language war flame posts. Pointless and misses the big picture.
- Nvorzula 8y agoWith regard to datacenter operators, I would argue that a simpler answer to that observation is that they are investing heavily in the are in which they can actually effect change. That is, they can swap in-and-out their hardware, but language of choice is largely up to their customers - the dev. They can advocate and champion a particular language, but really enforcing it in any meaningful way is narrow casting their own user base.
- codesushi42 8y agoThey could offer their own compilers or runtimes. Some big companies do. But most dollars and time is spent on hardware R&D and upgrades. Facebook and Google both have in house chip designers these days, specifically for their data centers.