| > conflates languages and their implementations A more charitable reading might accept that language names may be used as shorthand for particular language implementations. In this case: https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/se... ~
> representative of the broader set of software written in most languagesTo your knowledge, did such a collection of programs — actually shown to meet that criterion — exist? ~
> Typescript and JavaScript are very different in their analysisWhen we emphasize outliers with arithmetic means in "Table 4. Normalized global results for Energy, Time, and Memory". With medians: JS 7.25 times slower than C
TS 7.8 times slower than C
~
> all JavaScript is valid TypeScriptExcept `--alwaysStrict` and `--use_strict` So a JavaScript program may have failed as a TypeScript program, and a different program which worked as TypeScript may have been measured. ~
> not reproducibleThe authors provided a repo, including test program source code, that is still available 5 years later. page 3, footnote 1 "The measuring framework and the complete set of results are publicly available at https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages" |
> We are profoundly uninterested in claims that these measurements, of a few tiny programs, somehow define the relative performance of programming languages aka "Which programming language is fastest."
Just because I do not think that using the Benchmark Game is a good idea to demonstrate their thesis does not think that I do not think the Benchmark Game is bad.
Additionally,
> The authors provided a repo, including test program source code, that is still available 5 years later.
That link gives "We are sorry, but you do not have access to this service".