1. 30
  1. 13

    Average in the measures of “lines of code” vs “runtime performance”. Not sure those are terribly meaningful metrics. The visualization is pretty neat though, and in the end, isn’t that all that matters?

    1. 13

      The visualization is pretty neat though, and in the end, isn’t that all that matters?

      I don’t know. Is there a visualization of neatness compared to mattering that we could consult?

      1. 12

        Yes, next to the pie chart about my favourite bars and the bar chart about my favourite pies.

        1. 7
    2. 4

      Seems to be missing the golang tag.

      1. 3

        There are several Go compilers available at this point, with different performance profiles.

        1. 2

          One factor for the wordiness of Rust implementations is that they often have to repeat stuff because the benchmarksgame maintainer does not admit solutions containing macros in Rust. Idiomatic code would usually be shorter.

          1. 1

            The beauty of Go is excellent performance & concurrency. (similar to Java/C++) Combined with far better developer productivity than those 2 languages. Close to Ruby/Python/Node in terms of productivity.

            I really enjoy working with it for the last 18 months or so.

            1. 1

              I am deeply skeptical that when you factor in the entire life cycle of an application that any dynamically typed programming languages would win in the developer productivity department.

              1. 1

                Try out Django/Python. It’s just amazing how productive it is for building web apps. Lousy performance, but so quick in terms of developer productivity. My first startup had 7 years of Python code, its easy to maintain as long as you make sure you have an extensive test suite.

            2. 1

              Something similar has been done before! Glad to see there’s still interest and talent to be found on this subject.