Machine energy, definitely not programmer energy ;)

This doesn't account for all the comfort food the programmer will have to consume in order to keep themselves sane

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

and in most cases that's not good enough to justify choosing c

For raw computation, yes. Most programs aren't raw computation. They run in and out of memory a lot, or are tapping their feet while waiting 2ms for the SSD to get back to them. When we do have raw computation, it tends to be passed off to a C library, anyway, or else something that runs on a GPU.

We're not going to significantly reduce datacenter energy use just by rewriting everything in C.

Ah this ancient nonsense. Typescript and JavaScript get different results!

It's all based on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_Language_Benchmarks_Game

Microbenchmarks which are heavily gamed. Though in fairness the overall results are fairly reasonable.

Still I don't think this "energy efficiency" result is worth talking about. Faster languages are more energy efficient. Who new?

Edit: this also has some hilarious visualisation WTFs - using dendograms for performance figures (figures 4-6)! Why on earth do figures 7-12 include line graphs?

I just learned about Zig, an effort to make a better C compatible language. It's been really good so far, I definitely recommend checking it out! It's early stages for the community, but the core language is pretty developed and is a breath of fresh air compared to C.

Your link links to facebook that links to https://haslab.github.io/SAFER/scp21.pdf

Written in 2021 and not including julia is weird imo. I'm not saying it's faster but one should include it in a comparison.

True but it's also a cock to write in