Content deleted Content added
→Efficiency: Reply |
→Efficiency: Reply |
||
Line 200:
::::::::::::Perhaps a few words like {{tq|The machine code compiled from programmes written in the C language leads to execution that is hugely more efficient than running interpreted, byte-coded or JITed languages. A like-for-like study found C coded samples to be around 70 times more energy- and CPU efficient than those written in Python, and the C code used less than half the RAM.}} [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]</sup> 06:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think any form of words should omit Python or any other language by name. C is efficient for lots of reasons, like optimised compilers that create native machine code, static typing, efficient memory management <small>although actually the garbage collection issue is a bit more nuanced than many suppose</small> etc. However we can say all that without referring to any other language. An article on C just has to explain that one reason for writing in C is it creates efficient and fast code (which also makes it low energy). [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Unsure why Python, the currently most popular language,<ref>{{cite web|title=TIOBE Index |url=https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/}}</ref> should be omitted. I don't see an issue with comparisons, especially when they're reasonably sourced. But that said, mine is not a strong stance. What words should go in? And where? [[User:Chumpih|<span style="text-shadow: 2px 2.5px 3px #448811bb">Chumpih</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chumpih|t]]</sup> 18:44, 31 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.
| |||