this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
87 points (86.6% liked)

Programming

21593 readers
307 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31184706

C is one of the top languages in terms of speed, memory and energy

https://www.threads.com/@engineerscodex/post/C9_R-uhvGbv?hl=en

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brisk@aussie.zone 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

For those who don't want to open threads, it's a link to a paper on energy efficiency of programming languages.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 40 points 1 month ago (24 children)
[–] Mihies@programming.dev 14 points 1 month ago (20 children)

Also the difference between TS and JS doesn't make sense at first glance. 🤷‍♂️ I guess I need to read the research.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

My first thought is perhaps the TS is not targeting ESNext so they're getting hit with polyfills or something

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess we can take the overhead of rust considering all the advantages. Go however... can't even.

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even Haskell is higher on the list than Go, which surprises me a lot

[–] Colloidal@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But Go has go faster stripes in the logo! Google wouldn't make false advertising, would they?

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Now we just need a language with flames in the logq

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

For Lua I think it's just for the interpreted version, I've heard that LuaJIT is amazingly fast (comparable to C++ code), and that's what for example Löve (game engine) uses, and probably many other projects as well.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would be interested in how things like MATLAB and octave compare to R and python. But I guess it doesn't matter as much because the relative time of those being run in a data analysis or research context is probably relatively low compared to production code.

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is there a lot of computation-intensive code being written in pure Python? My impression was that the numpy/pandas/polars etc kind of stuff was powered by languages like fortran, rust and c++.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

WASM would be interesting as well, because lots of stuff can be compiled to it to run on the web

[–] benjhm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Indeed, here's an example - my climate-system model web-app, written in scala running (mainly) in wasm
(note: that was compiled with scala-js 1.17, they say latest 1.19 does wasm faster, I didn't yet compare).
[ Edit: note wasm variant only works with most recent browsers, maybe with experimental options set - if not try without ?wasm ]

[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have no clue what I am looking at but it is absolutely mesmerizing.

[–] benjhm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Oh, it's designed for a big desktop screen, although it just happens to work on mobile devices too - their compute power is enough, but to understand the interactions of complex systems, we need space.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

Looking at the Energy/Time ratios (lower is better) on page 15 is also interesting, it gives an idea of how "power hungry per CPU cycle" each language might be. Python's very high

[–] GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Every time I get surprised by the efficiency of Lisp! I guess they mean Common Lisp there, not Clojure or any modern dialect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

For Haskell to land that low on the list tells me they either couldn't find a good Haskell programmer and/or weren't using GHC.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Does the paper take into account the energy required to compile the code, the complexity of debugging and thus the required re-compilations after making small changes? Because IMHO that should all be part of the equation.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a good question, but I think the amount of time spent compiling a language is going to be pretty tiny compared to the amount of time the application is running.

Still - "energy efficiency" may be the worst metric to use when choosing a language.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Energy efficiency strongly correlates to datacentre costs.

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

And battery costs, including charging time, for a lot of devices. Users generally aren't happy with devices that run out of juice all the time.

[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 6 points 1 month ago

They compile each benchmark solution as needed, following the CLBG guidelines, but they do not measure or report the energy consumed during the compilation step.

Time to write our own paper with regex and compiler flags.