3 ms·
I'm sorry to say, but I'm not a fan of articles like this, you're not using the same data-structures and algorithms, so what's the point? To compare language c
by didibus 5y ago
I'm sorry to say, but I'm not a fan of articles like this, you're not using the same data-structures and algorithms, so what's the point?
To compare language compiler and runtime performance you should at least use similar data-structures and algorithms.
> but, you can generate very fast (i.e., more energy efficient)
I'm actually not sure this is true, I was surprised the other day to find a study on this and to find that the JVM was one of the most energy efficient runtime.
This was the link: https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/ https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-l...
And what you can see is that execution time doesn't always mean more energy efficient. For example you can look at Go and see that it beats a lot of things in execution time, but loses to those in energy efficiency. Like how Go was faster than Lisp yet less energy efficient than Lisp.
- hajile 5y agoQuite a few lisp implementations allow you to drop into inline assembly. That makes them theoretically per close to maximum efficiency.
- didibus 5y agoI'm not sure in what way you're using the word "efficiency" here? The research showed that the Go version of the programs were in average faster in terms of execution time and consumed less memory than the alternate Lisp versions, yet the Lisp versions consumed less electricity and were thus more energy efficient. So the interesting bit here is that better performance and lower memory consumption doesn't always mean more energy efficient. Now, there is definitely a link between performance and energy use, the research did show that for the most part, faster execution often reflected in lower energy spent, but there were surprising variation within that range where it wasn't always clear cut.