[flossly]

When I read this I can help but feel the energy inefficiency of the self-admitted [1] "billion dollar mistake" that was adding implicit nulls to the C language (and thereafter many other languages).

A bit broader: I wonder how strong typing can save energy! Maybe it makes compiling more energy consuming, but a bug in production costs a lot more energy than a few extra rounds of compiling.

Very hard to get data on. But would totally change the ranking of proglangs by "efficiency".

[keyle]

Exactly. You've expressed what I couldn't find the words to say.

I love C, but the shear amount of CVE and crashes are much worse in terms of global energy usage than if it were safe. I imagine the strongest strong-typing ranking that can be saved would come from Swift, where Rust's compile time would tank its ranking...

[flossly]

It may be that the energy drain of bugs simply eclipses the compile/run overhead of all these languages in nearly all use cases.