4 ms·

I have to disagree here. Although I know that the speaker is just trying to have fun with the idea the metaphor is flawed. whereas a Mercedes engine gets more a

I have to disagree here. Although I know that the speaker is just trying to have fun with the idea the metaphor is flawed. whereas a Mercedes engine gets more and more powerful and not any more efficient computer processors are getting more efficient by the day. also the "10 to 100 times slower" comment seems like an exaggeration to me. In the end the language you use should be decided by what will give your customers the best software possible and nothing else. Because its not immoral to waste the computers time but it is immoral to waste the users time.

cassandravoiton 15y ago
There are plenty of bench marks showing 10 to 100 times is in the ball part. Computers use masses of power because there are so many of them. As they get more efficient, their numbers increase. The benefit of using faster languages is constant irrespective of the efficiency of the machine on which it is running. How can wasting energy be OK? Even if you don't think it has climate change effects, it has economic and energy security effects - non of them good.
- gdg92989 15y ago
  I wouldn't say its OK to waste energy but you have to put things in perspective. Your first concern should be to save the users time. The less time they have to use the program to achieve their goal means less instructions. Videos like these aren't looking at the bigger picture.
  - cassandravoiton 15y ago
    If code runs faster then the user time is wasted less as well. That seems in alignment with the ideas behind the video.
    - gdg92989 15y ago
      I don't want to hear the "faster programs save the user time too" argument its total BS. the vast majority of CPU time is spent waiting for the user. So while you're on a holy quest maximizing 100,000 instructions down to 1,000, every second that the user wastes dealing with your neglected UI 1,000,000,000 cycles are wasted (and that's on a machine with a single 1ghz processor).
      - NerdsCentral 15y ago
        The post is talking about servers. Most scripting is for code running on servers. Servers do not wait for the user. Your comment has zero merit.
        gdg92989 15y ago
        no.. your comment and your whole shortsighted video have no merit. Servers spend time waiting for users as well. Whether its waiting for the next HTTP request or the next batch processing job servers wait for people too.
        NerdsCentral 15y ago
        OK, I'll explain this as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. When one commissions a server or server farm it is done against a service non functional requirement. For example 1 second page serve time at peak load. This means that a lot of the time the servers might be waiting but not a peak load. Never the less, modern servers will clock down if waiting. Now, what sets the peak load is the efficiency of the software and the number of people using the server and/or the run length of the batch jobs. The more efficient the software the less servers are required to meet the peak load and so the less power is used all the time. Further, the more efficient the software the less often servers will have to clock up during off peak times. Do you finally get it? If not - I suspect you have zero idea about large scale computing and are here only to defend your lack of ability to program anything other than scripts.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
cassandravoiton 15y ago
The page below shows the media peformance of Python (the fastest in these of PHP/Ruby/Python) as 49.73 times slower than the fastest compiled language. The seems pretty much between 10 and 100 to me. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-lan... compare 2 |- |--- 25% median 75% ---| -| Fortran Intel 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.35 1.87 7.84 C GNU gcc 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.21 1.55 2.36 4.97 C++ GNU g++ 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.26 1.68 2.28 2.28 ATS 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.45 2.30 3.90 7.24 Ada 2005 GNAT 1.04 1.04 1.22 1.51 1.84 2.76 4.81 Java 7 -server 1.40 1.40 1.59 1.90 2.14 2.97 4.76 Scala 1.38 1.38 1.90 2.76 3.43 5.72 10.21 Haskell GHC 1.53 1.53 2.60 2.80 4.36 7.00 15.15 Go 1.29 1.29 2.12 2.85 6.90 14.08 24.05 C# Mono 1.60 1.60 2.62 3.08 7.12 13.88 14.21 Lisp SBCL 1.12 1.12 1.81 3.40 4.24 7.89 11.20 OCaml 1.18 1.18 1.76 3.75 4.87 9.24 9.24 Pascal Free Pascal 1.53 1.53 2.47 4.37 7.49 15.03 24.20 Clojure 2.02 2.02 3.50 4.99 8.44 14.81 14.81 F# Mono 2.97 2.97 3.16 5.33 8.92 17.57 37.80 Racket 1.22 1.22 5.06 6.86 11.04 19.99 59.08 Erlang HiPE 5.17 5.17 7.99 10.79 15.44 26.61 41.54 Erlang 5.40 5.40 14.20 22.73 30.09 53.91 218.10 Python 3 1.22 1.22 9.25 49.73 68.86 131.37 131.37 PHP 1.90 1.90 10.29 50.17 83.42 193.10 260.90 Ruby 1.9 4.67 4.67 11.74 53.29 101.33 235.71 356.61 Ruby JRuby 5.75 5.75 26.67 58.81 115.06 247.65 266.51 Perl 4.00 4.00 22.61 103.29 126.82 225.35 225.35

cassandravoiton 15y ago

There are plenty of bench marks showing 10 to 100 times is in the ball part. Computers use masses of power because there are so many of them. As they get more efficient, their numbers increase. The benefit of using faster languages is constant irrespective of the efficiency of the machine on which it is running. How can wasting energy be OK? Even if you don't think it has climate change effects, it has economic and energy security effects - non of them good.

gdg92989 15y ago
I wouldn't say its OK to waste energy but you have to put things in perspective. Your first concern should be to save the users time. The less time they have to use the program to achieve their goal means less instructions. Videos like these aren't looking at the bigger picture.
- cassandravoiton 15y ago
  If code runs faster then the user time is wasted less as well. That seems in alignment with the ideas behind the video.
  - gdg92989 15y ago
    I don't want to hear the "faster programs save the user time too" argument its total BS. the vast majority of CPU time is spent waiting for the user. So while you're on a holy quest maximizing 100,000 instructions down to 1,000, every second that the user wastes dealing with your neglected UI 1,000,000,000 cycles are wasted (and that's on a machine with a single 1ghz processor).
    - NerdsCentral 15y ago
      The post is talking about servers. Most scripting is for code running on servers. Servers do not wait for the user. Your comment has zero merit.
      - gdg92989 15y ago
        no.. your comment and your whole shortsighted video have no merit. Servers spend time waiting for users as well. Whether its waiting for the next HTTP request or the next batch processing job servers wait for people too.
        NerdsCentral 15y ago
        OK, I'll explain this as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. When one commissions a server or server farm it is done against a service non functional requirement. For example 1 second page serve time at peak load. This means that a lot of the time the servers might be waiting but not a peak load. Never the less, modern servers will clock down if waiting. Now, what sets the peak load is the efficiency of the software and the number of people using the server and/or the run length of the batch jobs. The more efficient the software the less servers are required to meet the peak load and so the less power is used all the time. Further, the more efficient the software the less often servers will have to clock up during off peak times. Do you finally get it? If not - I suspect you have zero idea about large scale computing and are here only to defend your lack of ability to program anything other than scripts.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

cassandravoiton 15y ago

The page below shows the media peformance of Python (the fastest in these of PHP/Ruby/Python) as 49.73 times slower than the fastest compiled language. The seems pretty much between 10 and 100 to me. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-lan... compare 2 |- |--- 25% median 75% ---| -| Fortran Intel 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.35 1.87 7.84 C GNU gcc 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.21 1.55 2.36 4.97 C++ GNU g++ 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.26 1.68 2.28 2.28 ATS 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.45 2.30 3.90 7.24 Ada 2005 GNAT 1.04 1.04 1.22 1.51 1.84 2.76 4.81 Java 7 -server 1.40 1.40 1.59 1.90 2.14 2.97 4.76 Scala 1.38 1.38 1.90 2.76 3.43 5.72 10.21 Haskell GHC 1.53 1.53 2.60 2.80 4.36 7.00 15.15 Go 1.29 1.29 2.12 2.85 6.90 14.08 24.05 C# Mono 1.60 1.60 2.62 3.08 7.12 13.88 14.21 Lisp SBCL 1.12 1.12 1.81 3.40 4.24 7.89 11.20 OCaml 1.18 1.18 1.76 3.75 4.87 9.24 9.24 Pascal Free Pascal 1.53 1.53 2.47 4.37 7.49 15.03 24.20 Clojure 2.02 2.02 3.50 4.99 8.44 14.81 14.81 F# Mono 2.97 2.97 3.16 5.33 8.92 17.57 37.80 Racket 1.22 1.22 5.06 6.86 11.04 19.99 59.08 Erlang HiPE 5.17 5.17 7.99 10.79 15.44 26.61 41.54 Erlang 5.40 5.40 14.20 22.73 30.09 53.91 218.10 Python 3 1.22 1.22 9.25 49.73 68.86 131.37 131.37 PHP 1.90 1.90 10.29 50.17 83.42 193.10 260.90 Ruby 1.9 4.67 4.67 11.74 53.29 101.33 235.71 356.61 Ruby JRuby 5.75 5.75 26.67 58.81 115.06 247.65 266.51 Perl 4.00 4.00 22.61 103.29 126.82 225.35 225.35