1. 12

This paper presents a study of the runtime, memory usage and energy consumption of twenty seven well-known software languages. We monitor the performance of such languages using ten different programming problems, expressed in each of the languages. Our results show interesting findings, such as, slower/faster languages consuming less/more energy, and how memory usage influences energy consumption. We show how to use our results to provide software engineers support to decide which language to use when energy efficiency is a concern.

  1.  

  2. 2

    It would be interesting to see a follow up to this study given that Rust was only in the second tier of all the energy/time/memory groupings. Rust has moved in the rankings a bit on the CLBG since this study was created so it things might be shuffled a bit.

    1. 2

      This paper was published by the group in early 2021: http://repositorium.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/69044/1/paper.pdf. It includes new measurements and evaluations based on Rosetta Code (in addition to CLBG). According to the paper, the measurement results of both code sources are comparable. I made some additional evaluations based on the geometric mean of the time data normalized to C though and get a different order than the one in Table 4 of the paper, see http://software.rochus-keller.ch/Ranking_programming_languages_by_energy_efficiency_evaluation.ods. The paper seems to have used arithmetic instead of geometric means, which is questionable given http://ece.uprm.edu/~nayda/Courses/Icom5047F06/Papers/paper4.pdf.

      1. 1

        It seems like this is an extension of the previous paper. I’m not sure if they made any changes to the CLBG sections. Couple of tells:

        • both papers group Ruby with functional languages, but not with object oriented languages
        • the tables don’t seem to be changed (on casual inspection)

        Still, it is extended with Rosetta examples so this is interesting. Thanks for posting it!