|
|
|
|
|
by Zababa
27 days ago
|
|
This paper is not really relevant, it's based on the "Computer Language Benchmark Game", so what it measures is a mix of the efficiency/speed of the language and the attention that practitioners of that language gave to the Computer Language Benchmark Games. What is measured in that table is neither naive code nor the absolute limit you can reach with each language, which means you can't really then compare languages between themselves the way the paper implies. I think picking professionals at random that practice those languages and ask them to write Computer Language Benchmark Games code would be maybe a bit more representative, but even there you face huge biases. |
|
Maybe a nit pick. But this isn't a basis to say you can't compare the code. The 'average' code is going to be somewhere between your two extremes. Assuming on average, the code was written by the average programmer, you can get an insight in to what the average programmer of a programming language should expect.
Now it may be that populations of programmers favour different things (speed, memory usage, ease of implementation) but that still forms a valid comparison.