Research paper "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How does energy, time, and memory relate?"

[Ian Kelly]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Steve D'Aprano
<steve+python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:04 am, breamoreboy at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I thought some might find this
>> https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/ interesting.
>
> "Made with the new Google Sites, an effortless way to create beautiful sites."
>
> More like an effortless way to create a complete dog's breakfast. Once upon a
> time, web sites would degrade gracefully. If something interrupted the page
> loading, or something wasn't quite right, or you'd still get something usable.
> Now, if the tiniest thing goes wrong, you get a junk.
>
> I've tried to see the results, but I just get a bunch of broken images :-(
>
>
> On the linked page, starting from the top and scrolling down, I see:
>
> - about two screens worth of black white space;
>
> - followed by three giant black horizontal bars, each one about an inch high;
>
> - more white space;
>
> - what looks like something that was intended to be a side-bar, containing:
>
> SLE'17
>     Home
>     Results
>     Setup
>     More
>
> - a giant down-pointing arrowhead, about three inches tall, which turns
>   grey when you mouse-over it but doesn't do anything when clicked;
>
> - three more links:
>
>     Home
>     Results
>     Setup
>
>   which disappear when you mouse-over them;
>
> - finally some content!
>
>     The tools and graphical data pointed by this page are included in the
>     research paper "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How does
>     Energy, Time and Memory Relate?", accepted at the International Conference
>     on Software Language Engineering (SLE)
>
>     [1] Measuring Framework & Benchmarks
>     [2] Complete Set of Results
>     [3] Setup
>     [4] Paper
>
>
>   where the last four bits are links;
>
> - the smug, self-congratulatory comment quoted above about "beautiful sites";
>
> - a button "Create a site"
>
> - What was presumably intended to be a link, but is actually just a piece of
>   plain text: "Report abuse";
>
> - more whitespace;
>
> - and finally a giant blue "i", pointed at the bottom, and slanted at 45
>   degrees. Presumably a logo for somebody or something.
>
>
> And yes, I am allowing scripts from Google and Gstatic to run, and the page is
> still broken.

It looks fine to me.


> Including the hyperlinks, that's about 700 bytes of actual content. Let's double
> it for the overhead of HTML over plain text, so somewhat less than 1.5 KiB of
> content.
>
> The actual page is 27285 bytes or over 26 KiB. That gives us something with a
> useful content to bloat factor of 1:17, and *the page still doesn't work.*
>
> And that's not even counting any additional files the page requires, like CSS,
> external javascript files, images, ads, web-bugs, etc. You want to know why
> browsing the web today on full ADSL or faster speeds is *slower* than using a
> dial up modem in the 1990s? This is why.
>
> www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/why_your_internet_experience_i.html
>
> Nine years later, and the problem is worse, not better.

If you're using a cell phone over 2G, then I tentatively agree. But on
my laptop over WiFi, this page that you're complaining about loaded in
783 ms when I tried it.