leah & nybbles & bytes, oh my! on Nostr: wow, check out the economist-think! > "With C being effectively high-level assembly ...
wow, check out the economist-think!
> "With C being effectively high-level assembly code this is probably no surprise, but languages such as C++ and Ada should see no severe performance penalty over C due to their design, which is the part where this particular study begins to fall apart."
umm.... no. when you have empirical results that contradict your beliefs about the aspect of reality being studied, it is the height of foolishness to claim that the results must be wrong, and that therefore the study that produced them must be flawed! by all means go looking for flaws, but not on the basis that they must be there - simply on the basis that an unusual result should be checked!
science *requires* that people park their hobby horses outside the lab. sadly, it doesn't always happen. so we get articles like this one:
https://hackaday.com/2024/09/10/assessing-the-energy-efficiency-of-programming-languages/
trying to find out what's "wrong" with a study simply because it produced a result the author didn't like.
Hackaday: do better.
> "With C being effectively high-level assembly code this is probably no surprise, but languages such as C++ and Ada should see no severe performance penalty over C due to their design, which is the part where this particular study begins to fall apart."
umm.... no. when you have empirical results that contradict your beliefs about the aspect of reality being studied, it is the height of foolishness to claim that the results must be wrong, and that therefore the study that produced them must be flawed! by all means go looking for flaws, but not on the basis that they must be there - simply on the basis that an unusual result should be checked!
science *requires* that people park their hobby horses outside the lab. sadly, it doesn't always happen. so we get articles like this one:
https://hackaday.com/2024/09/10/assessing-the-energy-efficiency-of-programming-languages/
trying to find out what's "wrong" with a study simply because it produced a result the author didn't like.
Hackaday: do better.