The study of language efficiency has gained significant traction in recent years, driven by advancements in corpus linguistics and statistical methods. While ideas about efficient language use have existed for over a century, they remained largely unexplored until the development of large, annotated corpora and sophisticated analytical tools12. This resurgence of interest has led to a wealth of research examining efficiency across various linguistic levels, from phonology to syntax. Corpus-based approaches have revealed that human languages consistently exhibit patterns of efficient communication, balancing the needs of both speakers and listeners3. For instance, frequent words tend to have more meanings, but languages also maintain a diverse lexicon to aid comprehension3. These findings suggest that languages evolve under competing pressures for communicative efficiency, shaped by cognitive constraints and the need for effective information transfer123.

According to multiple studies, compiled languages consistently top the rankings for energy efficiency. C stands out as the most energy-efficient language across various benchmarks, closely followed by Rust, which occasionally outperforms C in specific tasks12. C++ generally secures a spot in the top three, while Ada and Go also demonstrate strong energy efficiency34. These languages' low-level nature and direct access to system resources contribute significantly to their superior energy performance15. The efficiency gap between compiled and interpreted languages is substantial, with C using up to 45 times less energy than Python for equivalent tasks6.

Interpreted languages consistently rank as the least energy-efficient in programming benchmarks. Python, despite its popularity, has been found to consume up to 45 times more energy than C++1. Other high-energy consumers include Ruby, Perl, Lua, and TypeScript2. These languages, while often praised for their ease of use and rapid development capabilities, come with a significant energy cost. The inefficiency stems largely from their interpreted nature, requiring additional processing steps during runtime, which translates to increased power consumption and slower execution times compared to compiled languages32.

Several key factors influence the energy efficiency of programming languages:

• Compilation vs. Interpretation: Compiled languages generally outperform interpreted ones in energy efficiency due to direct machine code translation12.

• Low-level Control: Languages providing direct access to system resources, like C and C++, allow for more fine-grained energy management13.

• Memory Usage: Higher memory consumption correlates with increased energy usage4.

• Execution Time: While not always directly proportional, faster execution often leads to lower energy consumption4.

• Optimization Techniques: Modern compilers and runtime environments can significantly impact energy efficiency through various optimization methods35.

Balancing energy efficiency with other factors like development speed and maintainability is crucial for developers. While C and C++ offer superior efficiency, they can be more challenging to work with compared to higher-level languages1. Adopting green coding practices can help reduce environmental impact regardless of the chosen language2. The most suitable language may vary depending on the specific task or application, as demonstrated by Rust outperforming C in certain benchmarks3. For projects with limited power supplies, such as mobile applications or Internet-of-Things systems, considering energy consumption becomes particularly important4.