Rather than comparing languages in absolute, I think it's worthwhile to
consider energy (or computational) efficiency achieved in given amounts of
developer working time. Here Nim already has a advantage in terms of
productivity.
Add to that compile-time execution, templates and macros and it b
Thank you for good explanations! :) There wasn't any opinions regarding my
second question, but can we agree that the energy efficiency in software is
important and the efficiency of the language is the last "oompf" after algos
are selected and optimized properly?
This and th
> such as tables, and here Nim doesn't make any special attempt at optimizing
> for power consumption
Actually, the stdlib Table uses open addressed hash tables with linear probing
which is an attempt to "work with" as opposed to "against" the CPU prefetcher.
(How effective this is depends upon
I actually took a course on energy efficient programming at university.
Fascinating subject, and surprisingly tightly linked to speed (less energy to
get work done often means work is done faster). While C and Nim definitely have
a huge benefit over languages like Python or Java as they can go m
> Could one state that Nim is automatically in par with C?
I'd say normal-written Nim would be worse than C, but not by much.
Hello everyone,
I bumped in my Hackaday news feed into following "study" regarding energy
efficiencies of programming languages:
<https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages>/
(Hackaday article
<https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-
