fructure VS Energy-Languages

Even the racket teachpack libraries designed for education are very capable; I was able to make this structured editor with only using teachpack content without external deps: https://github.com/disconcision/fructure

Right, it's fine, and is a pretty basic macro. Doubly linked lists are pretty basic data structures too, even the Rust versions once you figure it out. I like your sibling comment making it look like the CL version. I still want to know in more detail though why you think that doing things this way instead of the CL way is less likely to be "fragile and break down" for the complicated stuff, it would help to have a specific complicated example to showcase. Perhaps the linked https://github.com/disconcision/fructure in another comment would be a good study? The author there claimed they might not have been able to manage with defmacro, maybe someone familiar with both could articulate the challenges in detail. Is it just an issue of some things benefit a lot from pattern matching, and if so, does using CL's Trivia system mitigate that at all (in the same way that using gensym+packages+Lisp-2ness can mitigate hygiene issues)?

see also: fructure

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