So do we think Java is benefiting from J2ME and Android research? Is it just a coincidence?
Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
21–30 of 267 posts
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#22Interesting results, but I think the farther you go down the list the more the fact that you're using the Computer Language Benchmark Game affects what you're seeing, as not all languages get the same attention. For example, Javascript and Typescript. Theoretically, I would assume those to be very close, since one compiles to the other. And for memory usage, they are very close. But for running time, Typescript is an…
That’s an interesting discrepancy, I might have had the same gut reaction. But you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific. It’s possible you’re right, but maybe find out which algorithms are being used first? Perhaps there is a reason that TypeScript actually is an order of magnitude slower than JavaScript. The Benchmark Game project was specifical…
> you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific.
No! I think this is a very useful project and analysis. I just think that some languages might have extremely optimized versions (or possibly more likely, some languages don't quite yet have that extremely optimized version that has propagated throughout the others) and that might be affecting specific languages in the analysis.
I think the first 5-10 entries are probably very accurate, as they are generally with very performance centric and often optimized for performance languages. As the languages and VMs/interpreters do more and are optimized less, it's much easier to miss a performance difference caused by an benchmark submission and attribute it to an inherent aspect of the language.
> I am at least giving benefit of the doubt and wondering what might be wrong with TypeScript.
I did no such thing. Note how I used the phrases "Theoretically, I would assume" and "That looks suspiciously like". I simply raised an issue of concern, in a way where it was obvious that I did not know if my concern was correct, and wondered that if it was, what else it might affect.
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#23> A faster language is not always the most energy efficient
My rule of thumb now is that memory access, not compute, is the primary consumer of energy. That would tend to confirm the above statement while also supporting the data that scripting languages aren’t super energy efficient, since they tend to do a lot more dynamic allocation than compiled languages, when generally broadly speaking about common programming practices in each language.
This is mainly colored by GPU usage and a paper/presentation some friends made: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324217073_A_Detaile...
In the GPU case, memory access costs sometimes 10x more than compute, meaning that minimizing average (not peak) memory traffic is more or less the only path to significantly reduced energy. (See figs 7 & 10 in the linked paper)
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#24> A faster language is not always the most energy efficient My rule of thumb now is that memory access, not compute, is the primary consumer of energy. That would tend to confirm the above statement while also supporting the data that scripting languages aren’t super energy efficient, since they tend to do a lot more dynamic allocation than compiled languages, when generally broadly speaking about common programming…
"Costs more" in terms of energy per... what quantity exactly? Instruction executed? Clock cycle? Datum processed?
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#25No mention of assembly language, which should be even lower
on electricity and RAM usage than C and Pascal.
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
submit a better implementation. it is not possible for any one entity to produce optimal implementations for many languages, it is up to us. or, if you dont like their rules, make your own benchmark system with new rules.
I don't use Typescript, and use Javascript only for what I have to. I don't care about the ranking of either of them, I'm just pointing out a possible flaw in the methodology that should be taken into account when looking at the numbers presented, and what I suspect is a concrete example of that. This also isn't a criticism of the benchmark game, it's well known that not every implementation is equivalent in the time…
it is absolutely a flaw in the methodology, but one I think is unavoidable without enormous resources.
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#27> A faster language is not always the most energy efficient My rule of thumb now is that memory access, not compute, is the primary consumer of energy. That would tend to confirm the above statement while also supporting the data that scripting languages aren’t super energy efficient, since they tend to do a lot more dynamic allocation than compiled languages, when generally broadly speaking about common programming…
"Costs more" in terms of energy per... what quantity exactly? Instruction executed? Clock cycle? Datum processed?
In the paper it’s energy per rendered pixel. You could translate that abstractly to watts per flop.
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an interesting discrepancy, I might have had the same gut reaction. But you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific. It’s possible you’re right, but maybe find out which algorithms are being used first? Perhaps there is a reason that TypeScript actually is an order of magnitude slower than JavaScript. The Benchmark Game project was specifical…
You can write literally any JavaScript program with TypeScript (falling back to the `any` type if you really need to), so this doesn't really work in this case. Also, typical TypeScript programs are faster than typical JavaScript programs, because JavaScript JITs like predictable object shapes and monomorphic functions for the same reasons that other language implementations require them. Libraries like lodash and bl…
>typical TypeScript programs are faster than typical JavaScript programs
Person who works on js engines here :)
You would think this is the case, but in actuality, js and ts are about on par in performance (assuming similarly written code). This is in fact due to the fact engines optimize for idiomatic js patterns, not idiomatic typescript patterns. often these will align, but in some cases (usually revolving around generics and inheritance) well written js will actually fall through the optimization pipeline faster due to following more patterns that have specific optimization checks.
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an interesting discrepancy, I might have had the same gut reaction. But you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific. It’s possible you’re right, but maybe find out which algorithms are being used first? Perhaps there is a reason that TypeScript actually is an order of magnitude slower than JavaScript. The Benchmark Game project was specifical…
You can write literally any JavaScript program with TypeScript (falling back to the `any` type if you really need to), so this doesn't really work in this case. Also, typical TypeScript programs are faster than typical JavaScript programs, because JavaScript JITs like predictable object shapes and monomorphic functions for the same reasons that other language implementations require them. Libraries like lodash and bl…
So why is the TypeScript bench slower?
Re: Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
#30How does "TypeScript" come out to an energy score of 21.50 when "JavaScript" has a score of 4.45 - that makes 0 sense.