Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #163577 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-22 16:19 -0600 |
| Last post | 2021-12-06 16:21 +0100 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 94 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 16:19 -0600
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 14:58 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-23 07:10 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 13:12 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-24 10:54 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 12:01 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-24 13:58 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 13:23 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-22 18:25 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-23 07:21 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 04:50 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-11-23 17:56 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-24 10:55 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 19:00 -0600
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-24 16:04 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 11:43 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2021-11-23 14:17 +0200
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-23 16:53 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2021-11-24 11:40 +0200
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-24 15:49 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 19:01 -0600
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2021-11-24 11:33 +0200
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2021-11-24 15:28 -0600
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 14:39 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-23 16:55 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-23 12:28 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 19:05 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-23 13:41 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 19:53 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 16:31 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-23 21:27 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-24 18:32 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-24 12:54 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-24 20:52 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-24 15:13 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 19:13 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 16:25 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-24 15:48 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-24 11:54 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-25 11:19 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-11-25 11:46 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-25 15:57 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-25 07:04 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-25 15:59 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 03:37 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-23 16:03 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-11-23 15:50 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-23 17:51 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott DozingDog@thekennel.co - 2021-11-23 17:00 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-23 12:36 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-23 19:24 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-11-23 13:50 -0500
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-23 20:02 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-23 20:59 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-23 20:50 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-11-24 11:18 +1300
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-23 22:58 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-23 23:46 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-24 13:59 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-12-11 13:25 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-11 14:54 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-25 12:12 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-23 23:35 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-24 15:30 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-24 14:43 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-23 20:29 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-23 16:14 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 11:56 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-24 10:14 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-24 19:55 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 21:13 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 21:11 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 21:17 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-11-24 20:42 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 23:25 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-12-11 14:07 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-11 18:46 +0000
[OT] Lisp. Was: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-11 20:11 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 17:59 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-14 03:18 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 10:57 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 22:03 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-20 02:40 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-20 12:05 +0000
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-11-24 14:12 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-11-25 12:00 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-05 22:51 +0200
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-05 19:20 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 01:52 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 12:19 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 12:27 -0800
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-06 12:28 +0100
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-06 13:40 +0200
Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-06 16:21 +0100
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-16 10:57 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" |
| Message-ID | <1781f8bb-c40a-40f1-a806-6069d2a8be28n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163831 |
On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:18:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Dave Dunfield writes: > > >>"C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott > > > > Assuming by "Green", he means which programming language allows a programmer > > to "accomplish the most goals" with the least amount of cycles (energy > > use)... > Why are you replying to me? Why do you include a quoted line that was > not in the post you are replying to? Maybe something is wrong with your > news client. Sorry, I "thought" I had removed attrition - and just quoted a line I recalled seeing in the initial posting (that I could see) - curious to know how it shows up as "a reply to you", as I don't see any mention of you in my reader" ... I probably should have removed the extra '>' showing "a quote of a quote" but as there was no other text it didn't seem (to me) to be an issue... It's pretty clearly only referencing the initial text. sorry if this oversight bothered you. I do know my reader is "broken", I'm still using "Google Groups" while I decide if it's worth getting back into this or not ... GG isn't at all friendly to "C" or programming - groups. (I've no doubt that a number of people who have also "responded to me" will be pleased I'm leaning toward the "not" :-) Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-16 22:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" |
| Message-ID | <87lf0kurzv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #163870 |
Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:18:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Dave Dunfield writes: >> >> >>"C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >> > >> > Assuming by "Green", he means which programming language allows a programmer >> > to "accomplish the most goals" with the least amount of cycles (energy >> > use)... >> Why are you replying to me? Why do you include a quoted line that was >> not in the post you are replying to? Maybe something is wrong with your >> news client. > > Sorry, I "thought" I had removed attrition - and just quoted a line I > recalled seeing in the initial posting (that I could see) You had removed all attributions. By the way, that's not considered good form. People like to know who said what. > - curious to know how it shows up as "a reply to you", as I don't see > any mention of you in my reader" ... Post have an "In-Reply-To" header that gives the ID of the message you are replying to. Posts also contain a "References" header that gives the whole chain of "parent" articles. > I probably should have removed the extra '>' showing "a quote of a > quote" but as there was no other text it didn't seem (to me) to be an > issue... It's pretty clearly only referencing the initial text. sorry > if this oversight bothered you. I was not bothered. I knew it was reply to me because my newsreader is set to give them priority. But anyone who wanted to see who said what you were replying to would be baffled. They'd go up to the parent article and see it was from me, but they would also see that I have not said what was quoted. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-20 02:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" |
| Message-ID | <c3f4cc26-f45f-4262-8500-6bd094da6792n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163887 |
On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 5:04:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > You had removed all attributions. By the way, that's not considered > good form. People like to know who said what. I am aware of that, but in this case the "quoted" line was the same as the title! I wasn't trying to quote anybody, I just wanted to put the context of my reply in the frame of "the subject of this thread". I amm guilty of being lazy and not cutting/pasting the title since it was easier to just clip where someone else had posted it. I should have removed the extra '>' > I was not bothered. I knew it was reply to me because my newsreader is > set to give them priority. I guess another downside of "Google Groups" - I use "reply all". Which I thought would just post to the thread as a whole, not to a particular participant. > But anyone who wanted to see who said what > you were replying to would be baffled. Out of curiosity - what is "good form" to reference the title? Dave ::: https://dunfield.themindfactory.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-20 12:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" |
| Message-ID | <878rwfmqft.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #164007 |
Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 5:04:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >> I was not bothered. I knew it was reply to me because my newsreader is >> set to give them priority. > > I guess another downside of "Google Groups" - I use "reply all". Which > I thought would just post to the thread as a whole, not to a > particular participant. As far as I know, you can't post in an existing thread without it being a reply to some other specific post. >> But anyone who wanted to see who said what >> you were replying to would be baffled. > > Out of curiosity - what is "good form" to reference the title? If the subject line is the only significant context (i.e. you are not replying to some specif point where quoting that point will help), then I think the clearest thing it to reply to the head post. It will appear to be a reply to whoever posted that head post, but you can't avoid appearing to replying to someone. You'll sometimes see people start a post with "piggybacking...", by which they mean that are replying to one post but they are not really making any specific points about it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-24 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <snmdbn$6vb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163577 |
On 11/22/2021 2:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott > https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ > > "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s > energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a > group Portuguese university researchers did and set out to quantify it. > Their 2017 research paper entitled Energy Efficiency across Programming > Languages / How Do Energy, Time, and Memory Relate? may have escaped > your attention, as it did ours." > https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf > > "Abstract: This paper presents a study of the runtime, memory usage and > energy consumption of twenty seven well-known soft- ware languages. We > monitor the performance of such lan- guages using ten different > programming problems, expressed in each of the languages. Our results > show interesting find- ings, such as, slower/faster languages consuming > less/more energy, and how memory usage influences energy consump- tion. > We show how to use our results to provide software engineers support to > decide which language to use when energy efficiency is a concern." > Humm... Perhaps, a main question can be, is there such a thing as a "green" programmer? One can write crappy and bloated code in C, that goes much slower than, say Python. However, one can write really efficient code in C... Therefore, the quality of a programmer seems to just want to come into play, so to speak... Using undefined behavior wrt the standard can be a key aspect to writing faster, more efficient code. Possible scenario: This os has built-in User-space Read-Copy-Update (URCU). However, if I use it then my program is no longer portable... Can things be greener with a talented programmer and a low-level language... Yes! Can things be greener with a crappy programmer and a low-level language... Humm, No? By chance? Unknown...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-25 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <snnqbn$1fj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163664 |
On 11/24/2021 11:12 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/22/2021 2:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >> >> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ >> >> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s >> energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a >> group Portuguese university researchers did and set out to quantify >> it. Their 2017 research paper entitled Energy Efficiency across >> Programming Languages / How Do Energy, Time, and Memory Relate? may >> have escaped your attention, as it did ours." >> https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf >> >> "Abstract: This paper presents a study of the runtime, memory usage >> and energy consumption of twenty seven well-known soft- ware >> languages. We monitor the performance of such lan- guages using ten >> different programming problems, expressed in each of the languages. >> Our results show interesting find- ings, such as, slower/faster >> languages consuming less/more energy, and how memory usage influences >> energy consump- tion. We show how to use our results to provide >> software engineers support to decide which language to use when energy >> efficiency is a concern." >> > > Humm... Perhaps, a main question can be, is there such a thing as a > "green" programmer? One can write crappy and bloated code in C, that > goes much slower than, say Python. Everything is possible, but achieving that requires some specialized skillset(!) However, one can write really > efficient code in C... Therefore, the quality of a programmer seems to > just want to come into play, so to speak... > > Using undefined behavior wrt the standard can be a key aspect to writing > faster, more efficient code. Possible scenario: This os has built-in > User-space Read-Copy-Update (URCU). However, if I use it then my program > is no longer portable... > > Can things be greener with a talented programmer and a low-level > language... Yes! > > Can things be greener with a crappy programmer and a low-level > language... Humm, No? By chance? Unknown...? > The issue is about idiomatic constructs, i.e. the mass of code running out there. I think that special circumstances and perverse cases do not really matter. Even more considering that C code that is so bad as to manage to perform worse than some interpreted language is most likely pretty much unmaintainable too, so doomed to fast extinction in the digital ecosystem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 22:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soj8p4$ucr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163577 |
23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: > "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott > https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ > > "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s > energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are easily defeated by users throwing more data to the program. Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less than a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 images in the next version! So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead of the former 20! Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at best naïve.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-05 19:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <sojvid$bl1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163708 |
On 12/5/2021 12:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: > 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: >> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >> >> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ >> >> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s >> energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a > > In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are easily > defeated by users throwing more data to the program. > > Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less than > a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 images > in the next version! > > So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological > features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead of > the former 20! > > Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at best > naïve. > Fwiw, a hardcore blow up is when I have to render volumes. 256^3 fine, 512^3 okay, 1024^3 slow, 2048^3 slow as shit... 4096^3 slower than a snail hiking up a mountain of salt! Yikes!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 01:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b92b17b6-d31b-4256-b2c1-e38f44442c21n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163709 |
On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 03:20:56 UTC, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/5/2021 12:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: > > 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: > >> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott > >> > >> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ > >> > >> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s > >> energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a > > > > In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are easily > > defeated by users throwing more data to the program. > > > > Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less than > > a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 images > > in the next version! > > > > So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological > > features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead of > > the former 20! > > > > Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at best > > naïve. > > > Fwiw, a hardcore blow up is when I have to render volumes. 256^3 fine, > 512^3 okay, 1024^3 slow, 2048^3 slow as shit... > > 4096^3 slower than a snail hiking up a mountain of salt! > If the data represents objects, you can use hierachy. One byte for each region. If 0, the whole region is empty, if bits are set, divide the region into 0. Clear regions have their bit clear, full or partially-full regions have their bit set. (You have to make your objects hollow, or set up some sort of scheme to handle 255, to avoid wasting time on fully-filled regions).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 12:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <solr7p$i2p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163712 |
On 12/6/2021 1:52 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 03:20:56 UTC, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 12/5/2021 12:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: >>> 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: >>>> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >>>> >>>> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ >>>> >>>> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s >>>> energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a >>> >>> In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are easily >>> defeated by users throwing more data to the program. >>> >>> Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less than >>> a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 images >>> in the next version! >>> >>> So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological >>> features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead of >>> the former 20! >>> >>> Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at best >>> naïve. >>> >> Fwiw, a hardcore blow up is when I have to render volumes. 256^3 fine, >> 512^3 okay, 1024^3 slow, 2048^3 slow as shit... >> >> 4096^3 slower than a snail hiking up a mountain of salt! >> > If the data represents objects, you can use hierachy. > One byte for each region. If 0, the whole region is empty, if bits are set, > divide the region into 0. Clear regions have their bit clear, full or partially-full > regions have their bit set. > (You have to make your objects hollow, or set up some sort of scheme to > handle 255, to avoid wasting time on fully-filled regions). > Fwiw, here is an example of some of my work wrt generating a "special" volumetric Mandelbulb: https://pastebin.com/raw/v1NNbDRz https://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery%3Bsa%3Dview%3Bid%3D17187 It dumps out a stack of images that can be rendered in 3d as a volumetric.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <solro4$lun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163725 |
On 12/6/2021 12:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/6/2021 1:52 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Monday, 6 December 2021 at 03:20:56 UTC, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 12/5/2021 12:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: >>>> 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: >>>>> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott [...] > Fwiw, here is an example of some of my work wrt generating a "special" > volumetric Mandelbulb: > > https://pastebin.com/raw/v1NNbDRz Oops! I do not think that the code I referenced computes my special power stacked mandelbulb. Sorry! > > https://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery%3Bsa%3Dview%3Bid%3D17187 I have pseudo code contained in the content of the link above for the power stacked bulb. Sorry everybody! > > > It dumps out a stack of images that can be rendered in 3d as a volumetric.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 12:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <soks4h$1p94$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163708 |
On 12/5/2021 9:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: > 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: >> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >> >> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ >> >> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a computer’s >> energy consumption and the choice of programming languages? Well, a > > In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are easily > defeated by users throwing more data to the program. > > Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less than > a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 images > in the next version! > > So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological > features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead of > the former 20! > > Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at best > naïve. > True, but this doesn't make inefficient languages any better, does it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soksrm$drc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163714 |
06.12.2021 13:28 Manfred kirjutas: > On 12/5/2021 9:51 PM, Paavo Helde wrote: >> 23.11.2021 00:19 Lynn McGuire kirjutas: >>> "C Is The Greenest Programming Language" by: Chris Lott >>> https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/c-is-the-greenest-programming-language/ >>> >>> "Have you ever wondered if there is a correlation between a >>> computer’s energy consumption and the choice of programming >>> languages? Well, a >> >> In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software are >> easily defeated by users throwing more data to the program. >> >> Wow, so you can fully analyze a 1024x1024 microscope image in less >> than a second! Wonderful, let's upgrade our hardware to take 2160x2160 >> images in the next version! >> >> So, you managed to speed up the calculation time of morphological >> features by 50%. Fine, now we want to calculate 1000 features instead >> of the former 20! >> >> Thus I'm afraid any hopes for a "green" programming language are at >> best naïve. >> > > True, but this doesn't make inefficient languages any better, does it? No, it does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-06 16:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sol9q7$ekh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163708 |
Am 05.12.2021 um 21:51 schrieb Paavo Helde: > In my experience, any efforts towards more efficient software > are easily defeated by users throwing more data to the program. And that should determine the absolute possible efficiency of a programming language? I think not.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web