this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
59 points (88.3% liked)
Programming
21981 readers
166 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tldr:
opinionated tldr:
Java has been around a really long time and I was still surprised how well it did.
I am shocked Fortran didn't do better. I don't code in Fortran. I assumed languages closer machine would do well.
Their conclusion in section 3.1:
That said, they really seem to be pointing out that there are exceptions to this rule, where the languages that solve a problem most quickly are not the ones that use the least energy doing it. If you step back from the detail of individual algorithms, speed and energy efficiency do seem broadly to vary together, as one would expect.
If your target audience says too lazy didn't read - I think the bit that applies like a rule of thumb to most cases is more relevant and has a higher practical knowledge value than the intricate details or an "it depends".
(Similar how you can just explain gravity with newton instead of einstein, to make it short, even though it is less precise or technically false)
That was a fascinating discovery. It seems Pascal and Fortran in particular fit into the "faster but less efficient energy-wise" category. I wonder what's going on there.
What they do have in common is that they are both O.G. languages.