The Influence of Programming Languages on Computational Efficiency and Performance

Imagine you need to build a house. You could choose to build it quickly with pre-made materials, or you could take more time to craft everything by hand for perfect precision. The tools and materials you choose change the speed of construction and the final quality of the home.
Programming languages are like those tools for building software. Every programming language is designed with different goals. Some, like Python, are created to be simple and allow developers to write code quickly. Others, like C++, are built to give the programmer a lot of control to make software run as fast and efficiently as possible.
This paper explores a simple but important question: How does the choice of a programming language affect the speed and efficiency of the software it creates?
We will explore why a program written in one language might run instantly, while the same program written in another language might be slower. We will look at the key reasons for these differences, such as whether a language compiled (translated into machine code beforehand, like C++) or interpreted (translated on the fly while running, like Python). We will also discuss how languages manage memory and how that impacts performance.
Ultimately, this research shows that there is no single "best" language. The choice is a classic trade-off: the need for raw speed and efficiency versus the need for fast development and ease of use. Understanding this balance is crucial for software developers and engineers to make the right choice for their specific project.

Imagine you need to build a house. You could choose

1. Prechelt, L. (2000). “An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages.” Computer, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 23-29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Classic benchmarking study comparing several popular languages for speed and memory usage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Sestoft, P. (2017). “Programming Language Performance Comparison.” Rosetta Code. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Provides thorough comparative benchmarks for language efficiency across standard algorithms. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ousterhout, J. (1998). “Scripting: Higher-Level Programming for the 21st Century.” IEEE Computer, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 23-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Explains why “scripting” languages like Python thrive despite slower performance through their use of compiled extensions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Flanagan, D., & Matsumoto, Y. (2008). “The Ruby Programming Language.” O’Reilly Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Discusses interpreter trade-offs and their impact on performance and developer productivity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Morandat, F., Hill, M., Osvald, L., & Vitek, J. (2012). “Evaluating the Design of the R Language: Objects and Interfaces.” Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Benchmarks scripting languages, exploring why libraries are often implemented in compiled languages. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Microsoft. (n.d.). “Windows Kernel Programming.” Microsoft Docs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Official documentation highlighting C’s critical role in high-performance system-level programming. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Matsakis, N. D., & Klock, F. S. (2014). “The Rust Language.” ACM SIGAda Ada Letters, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 103-104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Explains Rust’s ownership model and its effect on safety and performance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Golang Team. (n.d.). “Go at Google: Language Design in the Service of Software Engineering.” ACM Queue, vol. 10, no. 2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Discusses Go’s design philosophy for balancing concurrency, compilation speed, and computational efficiency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet