Energy-Languages VS racket-binfmt

Looking at the benchmark where C++ is worst compared to other languages, it's depending on the library used. I would guess if they used Google's re2 Regex library instead of Boost's, the result would be different.

https://github.com/google/re2

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma...

Trawling through the wayback machine, I did find that the older pages link to https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages, which does seem to provide the contents of the specific programs used and the benchmarking software. Excellent.

> … not … primarily an issue with means vs medians

We're comparing averages, why would we bother so much about the cause of an outlier.

> you linked directly to the C++ code for spectral-norm

You had linked to the wrong C and C++ code for spectral-norm, I linked to the code that was actually used.

> The time ratio of the Benchmarks Game fastest C version to the slowest C++ version is over 16x.

Again, you seem to be looking at the wrong repo.

The authors of "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages, SLE’17" provided this repo —

https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/issues/...

The paper authors provided a repo for the source code they used: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages

The study made their own measurements. They did not re-use measurements made by the benchmarks game.

One of the JavaScript programs at least was concurrent, whereas the TypeScript equivalent was synchronous. No wonder there's a difference...

Haven't looked closely at the other problems, but it's apparent to me that the solutions are not even trying to be similar, so comparing their efficiency is near useless.

the problem in question was the k-nucleotide one, IIRC:

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/13...

I've been trying to replicate a study on energy usage (alright, it's that study on energy usage) and I've hit a bit of a snag while trying to compile the Rust components of the project. Instead of using a Cargo.toml and building with cargo, the authors have decided to use a Makefile and manually pass flags into rustc.

Here is an issue from the repo with the code they used: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/issues/34

Racket internalizes Extra-linguistic mechanisms https://felleisen.org/matthias/manifesto/sec_intern.html

Also the fact that various DSLs can inter-op with each other directly, so that you can use something like a binary parser description, as if it was just another Racket library. For example this description of the format https://github.com/Bogdanp/racket-binfmt/blob/master/binfmt-..., is directly included in another file as a regular library https://github.com/Bogdanp/racket-binfmt/blob/master/binfmt-...

I agree that startup time is not a winning aspect of Racket. My naive understanding is because Racket is not a direct bytecode interpreter like CPython, but actually has to run a compile step to native code, and doing that for programs + their required libraries necessarily takes at least a couple of hundred milliseconds even before anything can start running, while CPython can pretty much start executing from the get go.