Amazing. I have seen this list popping up in my LinkedIn feed for more than a year already and it keeps coming back.<p>While any benchmark is of course interesting when considered on its own, the conclusions that people draw from this list tend to be complete nonsense: "Python is bad for the environment", "we should switch to language xxx to combat global warming" etc.<p>First of all, especially for the slower languages in this list, it is extremely rare that application code written in that language is the bottleneck of a performance critical application. Typically the bottlenecks of every day applications tend to be databases and network. If you need heavy number crunching, there tend to be excellent libraries available written in lower level languages, such as e.g. for Python NumPy and Pandas.
If you are really concerned about the energy footprint of your application, you're probably better off with optimizing these components. Or optimizing the higher level architecture of your own application, which tends to be a lot easier in a higher level langguage.<p>Second, coding in a faster language is often not economically possible. Programming the same application in C will normally take much longer than coding it in Python. Developing time costs money and can also mean loss of opportunity.<p>And finally, the 'greenest' language of them all was not even included in this list: assembly. I guess the author must have realized in the back of his head that such a difficult language wasn't a realistic option for switching to a more energy efficient solution. He/she just failed to realize that this argument applies to many other languages as well.