Talk:C (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:32, 30 August 2025

Revision as of 22:41, 30 August 2025

Line 186:

::::::::::The research paper clearly supports a massive difference in the efficiencies of the implementations. [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Why are we talking about Python at all? That is your fixation. That paper is specifically a study looking at fully 27 programming languages. It is not a study of C against Python - that is your interpretation of their data. It is not found in their conclusions. What the paper concludes is that a faster language is usually but not always more energy efficient. It is not speaking to a specific comparison of Python and C, and we ''cannot'' use their numbers to say in wikivoice that python {{tq|uses 75.88 times more electricity}}. Again, this is not encyclopaedic writing and it should not be in the article. <small>I mean, come on, 75.88? Only two decimal places?</small> [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"That paper is specifically a study looking at fully 27 programming languages. It is not a study of C against Python."

::::::::::::If you really want to include all of the information about all of the other 25 programming languages that lose to C, then we can do so. Personally, I do not think that there is space in the article to add a section about each and every language that C is better than. If readers want all of those details, then they can read the paper themselves. It is a very good paper, and perhaps it should be an external link.

::::::::::::"It is not found in their conclusions."

::::::::::::Look at table 4. You are wrong. Also, look at table 13.

::::::::::::"75.88? Only two decimal places?"

::::::::::::Data Table 4 had two decimal places.

::::::::::::"we cannot use their numbers to say in wikivoice that python uses 75.88 times more electricity"

::::::::::::That is a straw man argument. My most recent edit was saying that the study found 75.88 times more electricity used in their benchmarks. [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 22:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"developers have had way longer time to optimize (compiled) C implementations"

::::::::C is approximately 1.53 times older than Python. Python is 34 years old. C is 52 years old.