Content deleted Content added
→Energy Usage: Reply |
→Energy Usage: Reply |
||
Line 124:
::::::If the policies are to prevent needing to take an internet stranger's word, then why would pay-walled studies be citable? Pay-walled studies are not verifiable by normal people. [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 22:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::See [[WP:PAYWALL]]. You've got this backward. What are the full citation details of this paywalled study? [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I am not sure about the details of the study. I found a post online that claimed that the MIT study about energy usage of programming languages was published in 2021. However, I do not know the name of the study, or where to find it. [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 00:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:In many implementations, C compiles directly to machine code that runs directly on the target procsssor. Many other languages are either JITting, or use bytecodes which are considerably less efficient. While C is far from unique in producing machine code, it is totemic in doing so, and engineers choose C for its close-to-machine output. Perhaps words should go in the lede (or elsewhere) to extol this close-to-machine benefit of the language, perhaps alongside comparisons to other compiled languages. I don't think citing 80x or similar is wise, given how context-dependent such figures will be. [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]</sup> 22:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's more or less what the third paragraph of the lead is doing. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||