• TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        For Haskell to land that low on the list tells me they either couldn’t find a good Haskell programmer and/or weren’t using GHC.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Also the difference between TS and JS doesn’t make sense at first glance. 🤷‍♂️ I guess I need to read the research.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          My first thought is perhaps the TS is not targeting ESNext so they’re getting hit with polyfills or something

        • TCB13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          It does, the “compiler” adds a bunch of extra garbage for extra safety that really does have an impact.

          • mbtrhcs@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Only if you choose a lower language level as the target. Given these results I suspect the researchers had it output JS for something like ES5, meaning a bunch of polyfills for old browsers that they didn’t include in the JS-native implementation…

              • mbtrhcs@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                Yeah sure, you found the one notorious TypeScript feature that actually emits code, but a) this feature is recommended against and not used much to my knowledge and, more importantly, b) you cannot tell me that you genuinely believe the use of TypeScript enums – which generate extra function calls for a very limited number of operations – will 5x the energy consumption of the entire program.

                • TCB13@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  This isn’t true, there are other features that “emit code”, that includes: namespaces, decorators and some cases even async / await (when targeting ES5 or ES6).

          • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            I thought the idea of TS is that it strongly types everything so that the JS interpreter doesn’t waste all of its time trying to figure out the best way to store a variable in RAM.

            • Feyd@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              TS is compiled to JS, so the JS interpreter isn’t privy to the type information. TS is basically a robust static analysis tool

            • Colloidal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 days ago

              The code is ultimately ran in a JS interpreter. AFAIK TS transpiles into JS, there’s no TS specific interpreter. But such a huge difference is unexpected to me.

              • TCB13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

                Its really not, have you noticed how an enum is transpiled? you end up with a function… a lot of other things follow the same pattern.

                • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  No they don’t. Enums are actually unique in being the only Typescript feature that requires code gen, and they consider that to have been a mistake.

                  In any case that’s not the cause of the difference here.

                  • TCB13@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    This isn’t true, there are other features that “emit code”, that includes: namespaces, decorators and some cases even async / await (when targeting ES5 or ES6).

            • HelloRoot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              I’m using the fattest of java (Kotlin) on the fattest of frameworks (Spring boot) and it is still decently fast on a 5 year old raspberry pi. I can hit precise 50 μs timings with it.

              Imagine doing it in fat python (as opposed to micropython) like all the hip kids.

    • mbirth@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Does the paper take into account the energy required to compile the code, the complexity of debugging and thus the required re-compilations after making small changes? Because IMHO that should all be part of the equation.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s a good question, but I think the amount of time spent compiling a language is going to be pretty tiny compared to the amount of time the application is running.

        Still - “energy efficiency” may be the worst metric to use when choosing a language.