HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
greensoftwarelab
Energy-Languages
C2017–2024
greensoftwarelab / Energy-Languages

Energy-Languages

The complete set of tools for energy consumption analysis of programming languages, using Computer Language Benchmark Game

15Distinct people
23Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
713GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The complete set of tools for energy consumption analysis of programming languages, using Computer Language Benchmark Game

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 6:01:32 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year23 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-09-14 21:42:40 UTC to 2024-01-26 10:14:29 UTC.

024682017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments20172018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC808
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
This is unfortunately pure speculation on top of pure speculation, which is the problem I have with the top comment. You’re assuming incompetence when you could just go look it up. Why assume it’s someone who doesn’t know? Why use that to wander off into rant land about prejudices and make broad claims that internet benchmarks are bad, when you admit to having zero idea what the actual specific problem here is? The test that lowered TypeScript’s score in the paper is called fannkuch-redux, and here are the sources in question: https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... They are both contributed by the same person, and there is no bubble sort involved. So now you know. I don’t see an obvious reason one would be slower, but they’re also quite different. May
Read the rest
be the algorithmic complexity is different. Maybe the cross-compilation is doing something bad with memory allocation. Note the input sizes for this test are very small, it would be easy for a difference in temporary variables the compiler injects to cause a serious problem. What is not obvious is any prejudice, malice, or incompetence.
In Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)
The data for the paper the article talks about is online [1], and it says [2] that the benchmarks are "implemented in 28 different languages (exactly as taken from the Computer Language Benchmark Game)". The LISP evaluated by the Benchmark Game - and, apparently, this paper - is indeed SBCL [3], which seems about on par with Java. “Lisp, on average, consumes 2.27x more energy (131.34J) than C, while taking 2.44x more time to execute (4926.99ms), and 1.92x more memory (126.64Mb) needed when compared to Pascal.” [1] https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/ho... [2] https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages [3] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
In Which Programming Languages Use the Least Electricity? (2018)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.