Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

sites.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#51

Post by jsd1982 »

ashark wrote: post #46
flavio81 wrote: post #2

According to their normalized "global" results, something interesting i see: 1. Pascal, surprisingly, the most memory efficient of all. I should take a look at the implementation they used. 2. Rust a good alternative to C which leads in "energy efficiency" and speed. 3. Common Lisp most energy-efficient and fastest and smallest memory footprint of all the dynamic programming languages in the list -- like Python, Ruby…

> 4. PHP, JRuby, Ruby, Typescript, Perl, Python, being massively slow than the fastest languages, for example Ruby being 59 times slower than Rust or C. Take a look at some of the TypeScript code and compare it to the Javascript versions. At least some are way different, i.e. the TypeScript uses "modern" JS features and the JS version... looks about as much like C as it can.

Typescript is not its own language in terms of having a distinct runtime from Javascript so it has no performance difference and does not make sense to appear in this comparison.

I can see comparing different target versions of Javascript against one another (es2015 vs es2017 for instance), but it all depends on the VM chosen as well.

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#52

Post by psyc »

mamcx wrote: post #13
flavio81 wrote: post #2

According to their normalized "global" results, something interesting i see: 1. Pascal, surprisingly, the most memory efficient of all. I should take a look at the implementation they used. 2. Rust a good alternative to C which leads in "energy efficiency" and speed. 3. Common Lisp most energy-efficient and fastest and smallest memory footprint of all the dynamic programming languages in the list -- like Python, Ruby…

> 1. Pascal Pascal is a "hidden" gem in the area of languages. Sadly not enough pus for it, but imagine if it have the push that other languages have...

When I started programming in the early 90's, I remember Pascal being a serious contender, with C vs Pascal compilers being a pretty evenly matched contest.

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#53

Post by mamcx »

agumonkey wrote: post #16
mamcx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Pascal Pascal is a "hidden" gem in the area of languages. Sadly not enough pus for it, but imagine if it have the push that other languages have...

Now I need to finish my lisp.pas

You will like this:

https://github.com/kanaka/mal

(Have implementation in pascal!)

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#54

Post by jsd1982 »

glibgil wrote: post #27
ram_rar wrote: post #9

I am curious to know, if there is any explanation for why java performs better than Go.

Go was invented in the 1970s and then placed on the self for 40 years

I personally enjoy Go but your comment gave me a chuckle since it's very true. Have your upvote, friend, for whatever they're worth on HN.

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#55

Post by ashark »

jsd1982 wrote: post #51
ashark wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. PHP, JRuby, Ruby, Typescript, Perl, Python, being massively slow than the fastest languages, for example Ruby being 59 times slower than Rust or C. Take a look at some of the TypeScript code and compare it to the Javascript versions. At least some are way different, i.e. the TypeScript uses "modern" JS features and the JS version... looks about as much like C as it can.

Typescript is not its own language in terms of having a distinct runtime from Javascript so it has no performance difference and does not make sense to appear in this comparison. I can see comparing different target versions of Javascript against one another (es2015 vs es2017 for instance), but it all depends on the VM chosen as well.

Exactly. The difference at least some of these tests is measuring between the two is idiomatic modern JS (promise, map, careful variable scoping) with fast & loose old-school c-like JavaScript (for loops, global vars galore). Typescript has little to do with it.

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#56

Post by igouy »

copx wrote: post #22
flavio81 wrote: post #2

According to their normalized "global" results, something interesting i see: 1. Pascal, surprisingly, the most memory efficient of all. I should take a look at the implementation they used. 2. Rust a good alternative to C which leads in "energy efficiency" and speed. 3. Common Lisp most energy-efficient and fastest and smallest memory footprint of all the dynamic programming languages in the list -- like Python, Ruby…

>5. I wonder which implementation of Lua they used. Lua can be pretty fast, one of the fastest dynamic languages out there. I looked at the binary trees benchmark and while the Python version used multiprocessing to parallelize the code, the Lua version was not parallelized at all.. .. not that this is entirely unrealistic. Python comes with MP in the standard library while I am not aware of any "industrial strength"…

For an interested Lua programmer, there's a kind-of workable approach --

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#58

Post by rbehrends »

igouy wrote: post #20
cwzwarich wrote: post #11

I can't believe they used the Computer Language Benchmarks Game. Those benchmarks don't reflect real-world workloads at all, and the contest has fairly arbitrary rules about implementations and widely differing implementation quality between languages. This should have been rejected by peer review.

> Those benchmarks don't reflect real-world workloads at all… That's a very definite claim, for which you provide no supporting evidence ;-)

One of the worst offenders is probably the binary-trees benchmark.

1. It features an atypically high allocation rate compared to real-world programs.

2. As a synthetic micro benchmark that only ever allocates objects of one size, it makes pool allocators look disproportionately good. But in real-world applications with varying object sizes, overuse of pool allocators creates a serious risk for fragmentation.

3. The rules allow programs that use manual memory management to use pretty much any pool allocator library that they can get their hands on, but forbid garbage-collected languages from adjusting their GC parameters (last I checked, you could easily improve the performance of OCaml and Dart for that benchmark by a factor of 2-3 simply by adjusting GC settings, especially the size of the minor heap).

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#59

Post by igouy »

mncharity wrote: post #41
fnord123 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tests come from the benchmark game. If you want to see Forth, implement the tests in Forth: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/

> The tests come from the benchmark game. If you want to see Forth, implement the tests in Forth: But perhaps archive your code elsewhere. Github? Lots of language communities participated in past versions of the game. Like gforth and bigforth on shootout.alioth.debian.org circa 2008. Now it seems little remains but a few archive.org snapshots without source. Though perhaps all of that code was archived somewhere els…

It seems like you are entirely ignorant of the facts.

Sitting in the same old-repo, a GForth binary-trees program from 2005 --

https://alioth.debian.org/scm/viewvc.php/shootout/bench/bina...

edit Now it seems little remains but for you to lift-that-shade and tell-everyone how amazing it is that someone took the trouble to archive those obscure old programs.

Re: Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages

#60

Post by wruza »

copx wrote: post #22
flavio81 wrote: post #2

According to their normalized "global" results, something interesting i see: 1. Pascal, surprisingly, the most memory efficient of all. I should take a look at the implementation they used. 2. Rust a good alternative to C which leads in "energy efficiency" and speed. 3. Common Lisp most energy-efficient and fastest and smallest memory footprint of all the dynamic programming languages in the list -- like Python, Ruby…

>5. I wonder which implementation of Lua they used. Lua can be pretty fast, one of the fastest dynamic languages out there. I looked at the binary trees benchmark and while the Python version used multiprocessing to parallelize the code, the Lua version was not parallelized at all.. .. not that this is entirely unrealistic. Python comes with MP in the standard library while I am not aware of any "industrial strength"…

Idk if it is industrial strong, but there is lanes and probably few more listed at lua-users. Do you have any experience to share on these?

The choice of 5.3 is pretty strange, as Lua is known to split in two at 5.2, because LuaJIT was fixed to 5.1 variant with compat backports and is to my opinion an "industrial" Lua standard. 5.x are actually three different (but not absolutely superior to each other) languages with shared 5-like foundation and app-level code compatibility, so speaking about Lua in general is pointless in a sense.

http://lualanes.github.io/lanes/

http://lua-users.org/wiki/MultiTasking

Post reply on HN