PHP/Python/Ruby - Immoral?(nerds-central.blogspot.com) |
PHP/Python/Ruby - Immoral?(nerds-central.blogspot.com) |
Let's be very, very generous here and assume that it would take twice as long to code something in C that it would in Python. Let's assume that the code isn't a static library, but something like a web app or equivalent. Doubling the number of developers to get the 10x speed up / 90% reduction in server use is not worth it from an environmental perspective. Those developers use resources to live. They burn fuel to heat their dinner. They drive their car to work.
These types of arguments are trying to make an emotional plea to a perceived market failure. The solution is to fix the market, not waste time implementing stuff in C. Tax pollution at the rate at which it would take to clean it up and the market will automatically allocate resources efficiently.
From an economics point of view you are just wrong. Because of the vast numbers of computers used in 'scale out' architectures the impact of code efficiency is enormously bigger than the cost of developers. If a developer's code runs on 10 or 100 machines then you are correct. But modern software runs on hundreds or even hundreds of thousand machines.
Most software that ships to hundreds of thousands of computers is software that must run on other people's machines. If it must, then it is automatically in the markets best interest to optimize to require less overhead since it will give them access to a larger portion of the market. If it is for their own internal servers, then again it is in the market's best interest to roll it in C or similar since they are able to make the distinction as to where it is worth it to convert it to a lower level language.
Ooh, ooh, Betteridge's Law of Headlines - http://enwp.org/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines - has the answer: no.
But when your goal is first to market, and trying to get the MOST OUT OF THE PROGRAMMERS - it is a waste of human resources, and programmer enjoyment using a compiled language with an unfriendly syntax.
Of course, you could find experienced programmers who are super fast productive, and super happy to work in the compiled languages - but don't underestimate that most people enjoy interpreted's ease of getting started, and syntax simplicity - and usually they cost less to hire as there is a larger pool of people.
while (1)
{
// check for input
}
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-lan...
compare 2 |- |--- 25% median 75% ---| -|
CO2 is only a problem if we let it be.
Don't talk about things you don't understand.
Fair enough, but you do realize that not everyone will optimize inner loops after switching to C/Java? Certainly not to the extent of scientific computing or even the language shootout snippets.
Also to address the power usage of one server. The 6.6 tonnes number seems to come from having the server drawing 1kw of power continuously for an entire year. The biggest server I could find on Dell's site (E910) comes with a 1.1KW power supply. This DOES NOT mean that it draws 1.1KW continuously. Indeed, outside of peak usage hours it probably draws much less. This is amortized over many users as well. Even slow, interpreted languages can serve hundreds of users on such a server.
Compare this to driving 10 miles/day in a medium-sized car. This produces 2 tonnes of CO2 annually, and unless you're diligent at carpooling, probably serves one person. Even a small car will still use half of that. If some new software helps even a small number of people telecommute instead of driving, the result is overall positive. For this to work, such software has to be cheap (certainly cheaper than driving) and for that to happen programmer time must be conserved.