Research paper "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How does energy, time, and memory relate?"
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:
- 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:
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)
 Measuring Framework & Benchmarks
 Complete Set of Results
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
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
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,
browsing the web today on full ADSL or faster speeds is *slower* than using a
dial up modem in the 1990s? This is why.
Nine years later, and the problem is worse, not better.
?Cheer up,? they said, ?things could be worse.? So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.