3 ms·
> Put another way, if using the interpreted language saved even one minute of developer time, it was a net win for the carbon emissions of the program Develope
by edflsafoiewq 7y ago
> Put another way, if using the interpreted language saved even one minute of developer time, it was a net win for the carbon emissions of the program
Developers continue breathing even when they aren't programming.
- CameronNemo 7y agoI do not believe that was ever in question.
- dTal 7y agoIt's a valid objection to the statement they replied to. Saving developer time does not equate to lower emissions, so it is incorrect to call it a "net win".
- nabdab 7y agoSure and trains burn fuel even when you aren’t using them. But if we look at you carbon footprint it doesn’t seem wise to factor in every single train on the planet in your specific account har because they don’t all air still when you aren’t using them. When talking about the footprint of a company or a project, then you need to restrict the calculations to the resources they actually use. So if a project uses tools to get a product out quicker that means they’ve spend less human-hours, which have a co2 cost associated with them. Then you can weigh the cost of that tool versus the Human Resources both in a financial sense but also with respect to emissions.
- geofft 7y agoCorrect, and computers continue running. I'm referring to the carbon emissions of the development project itself. The faster the development is done, the sooner you can get on with developing other things.