5 ms·

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/master/Java/pidigits/pidigits.java https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... ht

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
    > … your real complaint is that… No. hayley-patton said the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js" — "shouldn't repeat misinformation" — and gave this as the "misinformation": "TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 Seems that hayley-patton misunderstood what they read.
  - igouy 4y ago
    (Off topic.) > … CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics". Relied-on to do what ?

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
  > … your real complaint is that… No. hayley-patton said the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js" — "shouldn't repeat misinformation" — and gave this as the "misinformation": "TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 Seems that hayley-patton misunderstood what they read.
- igouy 4y ago
  (Off topic.) > … CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics". Relied-on to do what ?