10 ms·
They are citing the "rust is more green than go" article debunked by Russ Cox: https://twitter.com/_rsc/status/1496352325157457922 https://twitter.com/_rsc/stat
by bigmek123 5y ago
They are citing the "rust is more green than go" article debunked by Russ Cox: https://twitter.com/_rsc/status/1496352325157457922 https://twitter.com/_rsc/status/1496352325157457922, also the excel comparison table they are showing is _extremely_ biased towards Rust - training for Rust 3/5 and Go 4/5? Dev time: Rust 2/5, Go 3/5? Really?
- rob74 5y agoNo idea why you're getting downvoted, but I agree that Russ Cox' criticism of the AWS article is justified, amongst others because of the 2017 (!) Portuguese study it cites - a scientific study that ranks the "energy efficiency" of programming languages based on Computer Language Benchmark Games - really? I mean, how about looking at some real world applications instead?
- igouy 5y agoWhat explanation is given in that 2017 paper for selecting programs from the benchmarks game? ---- Meanwhile we can do better than "every C program is a valid C++ program, so C++ can’t lose" defensiveness. Look at the data tables published with that 2017 paper: https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/results https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/re... There's an order of magnitude difference between the times of the selected C and C++ programs, for one thing — regex-redux. That is enough to explain all of the difference between the C and C++ time measurements shown in "Table 4. Normalized global results". (Seems like an outlier which could have been excluded.)