5 ms·

> What you say has to be about what was used by that independent study 5 years ago, not about whatever the benchmarks game website showed 5 years ago. The stud

> What you say has to be about what was used by that independent study 5 years ago, not about whatever the benchmarks game website showed 5 years ago. The study tested the benchmarks game programs. Page 2 of the paper [0] explicitly states "our case study to analyze the energy efficiency of software languages is based on the CLBG" and proceeds to describe the programs tested. [0] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...

igouy 4y ago
That could be relevant if the study tested every one of the programs shown on the benchmarks game website on some particular day. In other words if the set of programs tested by the study was identical to the set of programs shown on the benchmarks game website. Does the paper claim that?
- hayley-patton 4y ago
  There is a list of benchmarks used; including the Mandelbrot and pidigits benchmarks I cite. They also claim "they gathered the most efficient (i.e. fastest) version of the source code"; and I cited the fastest programs. This is legitimately painful to discuss, as this information is readily available in the paper, and seemingly we are getting nowhere by picking at how I made my observations; so I am going to do something more enjoyable, somewhere very far away from you.
  - igouy 4y ago
    So the study took a subset of the programs shown on the benchmarks game website sometime 5 years ago, and that is why instead of looking at the benchmarks game programs we need to look in the repo provided with the study.
    - ttybird2 4y ago
      https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/master/Java/pidigits/pidigits.java https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/master/Lisp/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.lisp https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... It feels like you are arguing in bad faith.
      - igouy 4y ago
        In what way? Do you mean we should not reference the repo that was provided with the study?
        ttybird2 4y ago
        So, just to make this clear, you were aware from the very start that - At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics". - The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game. - The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo. But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right? Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
        igouy 4y ago
        > The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game. Different author. When hayley-patton writes "The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author" they mean the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js". "The author does not mention the benchmarks game" and "Please quote the author's words which you say are misinformation" and "the author is talking about a 2017 study" and "the author actually tells us the reason" are also referring to the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js". You seem to mean someone else.
  - igouy 4y ago
    > we are getting nowhere We got to your misunderstanding of the author's comment — contrary to your belief, the author meant “TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry” than Rust, Go, C++. How unexceptional. Your misunderstanding, not their misinformation.

igouy 4y ago

That could be relevant if the study tested every one of the programs shown on the benchmarks game website on some particular day. In other words if the set of programs tested by the study was identical to the set of programs shown on the benchmarks game website. Does the paper claim that?

hayley-patton 4y ago
There is a list of benchmarks used; including the Mandelbrot and pidigits benchmarks I cite. They also claim "they gathered the most efficient (i.e. fastest) version of the source code"; and I cited the fastest programs. This is legitimately painful to discuss, as this information is readily available in the paper, and seemingly we are getting nowhere by picking at how I made my observations; so I am going to do something more enjoyable, somewhere very far away from you.
- igouy 4y ago
  So the study took a subset of the programs shown on the benchmarks game website sometime 5 years ago, and that is why instead of looking at the benchmarks game programs we need to look in the repo provided with the study.
  - ttybird2 4y ago
    https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/master/Java/pidigits/pidigits.java https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/master/Lisp/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.lisp https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... It feels like you are arguing in bad faith.
    - igouy 4y ago
      In what way? Do you mean we should not reference the repo that was provided with the study?
      - ttybird2 4y ago
        So, just to make this clear, you were aware from the very start that - At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics". - The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game. - The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo. But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right? Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
        igouy 4y ago
        > The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game. Different author. When hayley-patton writes "The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author" they mean the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js". "The author does not mention the benchmarks game" and "Please quote the author's words which you say are misinformation" and "the author is talking about a 2017 study" and "the author actually tells us the reason" are also referring to the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js". You seem to mean someone else.
- igouy 4y ago
  > we are getting nowhere We got to your misunderstanding of the author's comment — contrary to your belief, the author meant “TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry” than Rust, Go, C++. How unexceptional. Your misunderstanding, not their misinformation.