The Type Safety Shortcut

Content Follow Princioa Consultant Software Architect Team Leader S 30 a Forens S What Are the Greenest Programming Languages: This paper presents a study of the runtime, memory usage, and energy consumotion of twentvseven welcknown sottware lanGuages. We monitor the perormance or such languages using ten cnnerencorograminino problems, expressed in each of the languages. Our results show interesting findings, such as slower faster languages consuming less more energy, and now memo usage marlences enero consumotion. we show now to use ou results to provide software engineers support to decide which language to use when energy efficiency is a concern This study implemented 10 benchmark problems in 27 different programming languages and measure execution time, energy consumption, and peak memo use C is the most efficient programming language, while Python and Perl are the least environmental friendly programming languages Link: https:Inkd.indnyrcdGd engineers programming sottware language energy sustainabilty (c) C (c) Rust (c) C (c) Ada (v) Java (c) Pascal (c) Chapel (v) Lisp (c) Ocaml (c) Fortran (c) Swift (c) Haskell (v) C (c) Go (G) Dart (v) F (i) JavaScript (v) Racket (i) TypeScript (i Hack (i) PHP (y) Erlang (i) Lua (i) Jruby (a) Ruby (i) Python ( Perl Energy 1.00 1.03 1.34 1.70 1.98 2.14 2.18 2.27 2.40 2.52 2.79 3.10 3.14 3.23 3.83 4.13 4.45 7.91 21.50 24.02 29.30 42.23 45.98 46.54 69.91 75.88 79.58 C0 Venkatesh Madi and 4.999 others 397 comments

Content SO IMAGINE IF YOUR SHOPPING LIST COULD MAGICALLY CORRECT ITSELF IF YOU WROTE 'TOMATO' AS A FRUIT INSTEAD OF A VEGETABLE. THAT'S TYPESCRIPT IN REACT, EXCEPT IT'S FOR CODE, NOT GROCERIES, AND... UM, THE LIST ARGUES WITH YOU,

Oh, the sacred archetypes of code warriors! The Paladin with their holy linter crusade (because tabs vs spaces wasn't divisive enough). The Monk crafting artisanal frameworks while typing on a Model M keyboard that sounds like a machine gun. The Sorcerer whose one-liners are so cryptic they might as well be summoning demons—their code works through sheer dark magic until Mercury goes retrograde. The Warlock maintaining COBOL systems from the 1970s, bound by ancient contracts and the souls of retired programmers. And finally, the Bard, whose documentation haikus somehow charm project managers into extending deadlines. The most terrifying part? We all know at least one of each in our dev team. And if you don't... it might be you.

The top panel shows the simple, elegant approach to coding that we all pretend to advocate for in design meetings: just instantiate a class and call a method. Clean. Direct. Sensible. But then there's what we actually do when no one's watching (bottom panel): create an unholy chain of factories, managers, services, observers, and other enterprise patterns that would make even the most dedicated architecture astronaut blush. It's the classic "I could write this in 3 lines, but my resume needs buzzwords" approach. We've all been there—turning a simple task into a dissertation-worthy implementation because "scalability" and "best practices," when really we just wanted to flex our design pattern muscles.

Ah, the sacred art of variable naming. When your brain sees userId , it reads "user ID." But when it sees userid , your inner voice screams "USER-id???" like some confused database goblin. This is the hill many senior devs choose to die on after years of staring at poorly named variables. We'll spend 15 minutes in code review arguing about capitalization but somehow let that 500-line function with no comments slide right through.

The ultimate type-checking nightmare! Boolean questions should return true/false, not "maybe", "sometimes", or the dreaded string response. It's like asking "Is the server running?" and getting back "Well, it's Tuesday and Mercury is in retrograde..." Somewhere, a strongly-typed language is crying. The face perfectly captures that moment when you realize you'll need to add an extra validation layer because someone thought "Yes" and true were interchangeable. Classic rookie move that haunts even senior devs during code reviews.