Which programming languages use the least electricity?
-
Seems like Rust is having a moment.
This so-called benchmark is useless without further specification. Memory usage: Does this include kernel memory used by the application? How about virtual memory? Is committed memory counted differently from reserved memory? Execution time: Is this wall time (i.e. useless in a multi-tasking environment)? Does this include time spent in the kernel? How about startup & termination times of the RTL? Environment: How would the results vary if run on a different O/S? different compilers? Compilation time/memory usage: Given that compilation is performed once, while the application is run any number of times, this is meaningless unless one is speaking of differences measured in orders of magnitude.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Seems like Rust is having a moment.
There's a far more useful question: Which programming languages are least likely to cause alcoholism or other forms of substance abuse in their users?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
There's a far more useful question: Which programming languages are least likely to cause alcoholism or other forms of substance abuse in their users?
Software Zen:
delete this;I believe the answer to that question is: "Yes."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius
-
I believe the answer to that question is: "Yes."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius
:laugh: You said it brother!
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This so-called benchmark is useless without further specification. Memory usage: Does this include kernel memory used by the application? How about virtual memory? Is committed memory counted differently from reserved memory? Execution time: Is this wall time (i.e. useless in a multi-tasking environment)? Does this include time spent in the kernel? How about startup & termination times of the RTL? Environment: How would the results vary if run on a different O/S? different compilers? Compilation time/memory usage: Given that compilation is performed once, while the application is run any number of times, this is meaningless unless one is speaking of differences measured in orders of magnitude.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
A more detailed, possibly earlier paper: https://states.github.io/files/j2.pdf
-
A more detailed, possibly earlier paper: https://states.github.io/files/j2.pdf
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
This so-called benchmark is useless without further specification. Memory usage: Does this include kernel memory used by the application? How about virtual memory? Is committed memory counted differently from reserved memory? Execution time: Is this wall time (i.e. useless in a multi-tasking environment)? Does this include time spent in the kernel? How about startup & termination times of the RTL? Environment: How would the results vary if run on a different O/S? different compilers? Compilation time/memory usage: Given that compilation is performed once, while the application is run any number of times, this is meaningless unless one is speaking of differences measured in orders of magnitude.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
You can just run a few devices through a power monitor. Watch them at idle for a baseline, and then run a system stress - unless what you're saying is the benchmark itself is incomplete? And adding, this technique works better on realtime systems because you won't have seemingly random variances in resource usage like you will on a windows system for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
You can just run a few devices through a power monitor. Watch them at idle for a baseline, and then run a system stress - unless what you're saying is the benchmark itself is incomplete? And adding, this technique works better on realtime systems because you won't have seemingly random variances in resource usage like you will on a windows system for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Yes, the benchmark is incomplete. Your suggested method is good for "black box" testing, but won't separate application vs kernel power usage, for example. If one really wants to measure the application's power usage, one should separate out the kernel's power usage, to say nothing of other applications running simultaneously. I agree that doing this is easier on single-tasking or real-time O/Ses.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Yes, the benchmark is incomplete. Your suggested method is good for "black box" testing, but won't separate application vs kernel power usage, for example. If one really wants to measure the application's power usage, one should separate out the kernel's power usage, to say nothing of other applications running simultaneously. I agree that doing this is easier on single-tasking or real-time O/Ses.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Your suggested method is good for "black box" testing, but won't separate application vs kernel power usage, for example. If one really wants to measure the application's power usage, one should separate out the kernel's power usage, to say nothing of other applications running simultaneously.
That's why I suggested a realtime system would give better results. You don't really have much in the way of context switches and other kernel overhead, or if you do, you can absolutely control it.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix