You seem to have excluded the first part of that sentence: "Not that it had anything to do with our decision making, but…"
And "TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry" is probably intended to mean "far more energy-hungry" than C++ or Go.
> … hardly representative of typical code…
How did you measure "representative"?
Sure, but they shouldn't repeat misinformation, regardless of if they used it for decision-making or not.
> How did you measure "representative"?
Generally, I can't, but the CLBG solutions often rely on FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics, which I don't use very much, and I am not aware of anyone who would for application programming.
Please quote the author's words which you say are misinformation — so we don't waste time guessing what you mean — and then explain what you think is wrong.
> … often rely on FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics…
That wording seems to be copied from the current benchmarks game website but the author is talking about a 2017 study.
What you say has to be about what was used by that independent study 5 years ago, not about whatever the benchmarks game website shows today.
The implication, I believe, is that plain JavaScript is more energy efficient than TypeScript, which is what was reported in the paper. But this is a very odd observation, as TypeScript generates normal JavaScript code, which would be run on the same JavaScript implementation.
> That wording seems to be copied from the current benchmarks game website but the author is talking about a 2017 study.
I wrote that wording myself, so I guess I got lucky if it's the same as what's on the benchmarks game website. But that was my observation some years ago.
It seems pertinent for the state of CLBG in 2017 too:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170526092655/http://benchmarks... just FFIs out to GNU MP.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170619103241/http://benchmarks... uses "inline assembly" of a sort, and disables safety checks entirely.
No, the author actually tells us the reason — "And, we could well have chosen JavaScript for our Node.js code, though we're not likely to do this due to TypeScript being much more convenient to work with by comparison."
Given the title is "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js" the plain reading was always that "TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry" than Rust, Go, C++.
> … the state of CLBG in 2017…
The author does not mention the benchmarks game.
What you say has to be about what was used by that independent study 5 years ago, not about whatever the benchmarks game website showed 5 years ago.
The study tested the benchmarks game programs. Page 2 of the paper [0] explicitly states "our case study to analyze the energy efficiency of software languages is based on the CLBG" and proceeds to describe the programs tested.
[0] https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sle...
Does the paper claim that?
This is legitimately painful to discuss, as this information is readily available in the paper, and seemingly we are getting nowhere by picking at how I made my observations; so I am going to do something more enjoyable, somewhere very far away from you.
https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma...
It feels like you are arguing in bad faith.
- At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
- The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
- The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo.
But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right?
Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
Different author.
When hayley-patton writes "The third sentence should ring alarm bells in the head of the author" they mean the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js".
"The author does not mention the benchmarks game" and "Please quote the author's words which you say are misinformation" and "the author is talking about a 2017 study" and "the author actually tells us the reason" are also referring to the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js".
You seem to mean someone else.
No.
hayley-patton said the author of "We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js" — "shouldn't repeat misinformation" — and gave this as the "misinformation":
"TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry (and we're not likely to use pure JavaScript)."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504
Seems that hayley-patton misunderstood what they read.
> … CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
Relied-on to do what ?
We got to your misunderstanding of the author's comment — contrary to your belief, the author meant “TypeScript is apparently far more energy-hungry” than Rust, Go, C++.
How unexceptional.
Your misunderstanding, not their misinformation.