> I am not talking about replacing Clojure with Common Lisp. Why did you even come up with that strawman??
Because that's what I was talking about in the first place? I was responding directly to the text under the linked video making an ecological appeal to using SBCL over Clojure. Both are very efficient languages, so that particular appeal seems silly.
> The point is that if everyone used more efficient languages, a very large reduction in energy costs could be expected (not just in data centers by the way, every device takes power, and the ridiculously inefficient apps people are running probably cost a lot of energy).
Sure, I agree with that. But that's not what was being talked about. If you have data or sources you can share that show studies that model how much energy could be saved, I'd love to see them.
> It's the same argument as to why you should have a ecofriendly house or whatever: you try to do your part and hope the others will do too.
So don't write load bearing applications in Python. But most code is not load bearing or even executed that often. The energy usage of SBCL vs Clojure is like making the decision to unplug your toaster when you're not using it, and it's not even clear which is more efficient.
> You may be cynic enough to think that makes no difference, but you're just blind to your own unjustified prejudices.
I looked at the data and came to a conclusion. I was talking about choosing one pretty efficient language over another, you were talking about something else.
> Everything you said is a waste of your time.
You have no right to tell me what is a waste of my time. I found it quite interesting, I just wish we could've had a conversation made in good faith instead of whatever this was.