Content deleted Content added
→Energy Usage: Reply |
m →Energy Usage: Copyedit (minor) |
||
Line 127:
:::::::::If the post you're referring to is the facebook post, it does not state that they're the ones who came up with the table originally. Indeed, I have found screenshots of the same table on other blogs dating to before 2021. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 02:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::What about this, I found a paper on both https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/ranking-programming-languages-by-energy-efficiency and https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~mignotte/IFT2425/Documents/RankingProgrammingLanguagesByEnergyEfficiency.pdf about the energy usage of programming languages, and it has a similar statistic. Are these reliable sources? [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 00:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Great paper, published in [[Science of Computer Programming]] and
: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)
| |||