Python consumes 38x more energy than Java

What I noticed is that you have a lot of tools available to tune Java applications, but it was more necessary to rely on them to get to a good spot. In the Rust version, I got a 2x speed improvement by using a rayon thread pool instead of tokio, but the improvements in the Java version were 100x by the end of it.

True partly because shared_ptr is a relatively new language feature; I’ve been locked to a ~decade-old C++ compiler for most of my professional career, and so has everyone I know, just because support for a current compiler across platforms at any given time has been historically so spotty. It seems to be improving at the moment.

> it won’t be idiomatic

I just looked at the first example:

C: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

C++: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

The C++ doesn’t use shared_ptr or STL or anything, and isn’t that far from the C code, but it isn’t that close either. I wonder if it’s OMP configuration that’s causing it to be slower, or maybe just instruction cache or something since the C++ is larger.

The results say this one has C++ going 50% slower. I’m a little skeptical it’s the compiler’s or the language’s fault. I’d speculate it might have more to do with how the program is written.

C is not low-level enough for it to be even remotely true.

> Please explain how "AbstractProviderFactoryProxy" is related to the language.

The language Java did, until some time ago, not allow you to pass functions as arguments. You had to make an anonymous inner class for example, satisfying some interface. Many design patterns are very much oriented towards a language like Java, which does/did not allow for higher order functions.

Take the visitor pattern for example. It will get you a "Visitor" in your class name implementing a visitor. How would it work in other languages, which provide higher order functions or always did so? Well, you would simply write a function and depending on whether your language has static types, annotate its types for arguments and return value. You would then pass this function in as an argument, whose name can be "visitor".

Take a factory pattern as an example. How would it work? Well, a factory can be expressed using a function, that returns another function. It takes the arguments, that specify/narrow down how the returned function works. In Java it would become a Factory class instead. Instead of using a simple function, one needs (needed?) to build a whole class around that, because one could not return a function. So one would build that class and then make it return an object instead, which of course again must be derived from some class ...

Just 2 examples that quickly come to mind.

> I have taken over as lead for a Python project and what I see all the Java problems people used to make fun of (none have worked in Java before) and worse.

It is certainly true, that people also write shit code in Python. I have seen very popular libraries, which wrap REST APIs in objects. It is silly, because objects are meant to have some lifetime in which they communicate with each other and possibly change their state. There is no changing state though. Everything is a response from the REST API, which by the definition of REST should transfer the representative state in its responses. I don't want any in between stored state. I want the state that the API gives me. It is very much a more functional view on things. But Python programmers will go "make classes!" nevertheless. Because noun. Because not thinking about whether they really need a class. Because thinking that one approach fits it all and the only approaches they learned were procedural at the beginning of their learning and then OOP, which is complex enough to take years to learn properly, so that is where they stopped.

However, Python always (for a very long time?) has allowed you to pass procedures as arguments and as such does not encourage "AbstractProviderFactoryProxy" as much as Java does. Still, sometimes former Java developers try their hand at some Python code ...

> If you are writing modern Java syntax, there is little that is more stable and readable than good modern Java syntax.

Modern Java certainly has improved. But there is a lot of relearning to be done for those generations of Java programmers, to get rid of the "every noun a class" mentality.

Actually I ported it to Micronaut too and compiled it to native code. It's difficult to know exactly what the minimum amount of memory that a java application could run with during normal load, but I'd estimate that it was around 150 mb instead of 200 which was disappointing, 128 mb got intermittent OOMs. But the code was nicer than spring boot (or rust).