mirror of
https://github.com/Wessel/nhl-levenshtein.git
synced 2026-06-05 23:55:45 +02:00
25 lines
1.2 KiB
TeX
25 lines
1.2 KiB
TeX
\section{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
C\# has had the best execution speed, outperforming TypeScript by $3 \times$ and Haskell by over $1000 \times$ for long-string comparisons,
|
|
showcasing that imperative programming is highly efficient for intensive tasks.
|
|
|
|
C\# did consume considerably more memory (61 MiB) and CPU usage (38.14\%).
|
|
|
|
Haskell, whilst being the slowest in execution time by far,
|
|
did use $2 \times$ less memory (39 MiB) and $5 \times$ less CPU usage than C\# and TypeScript.
|
|
Making it an excellent choice for low resource environments where speed is not as important.
|
|
|
|
Its immutable nature and functional syntax also earned it the highest readability score (4.5),
|
|
making it an excellent choice for maintainability.
|
|
|
|
TypeScript did not excel at anything compared to C\# or Haskell,
|
|
but also did not perform poorly. Making it a good middleground for projects
|
|
on the web due to its ease of use.
|
|
|
|
These findings show that the choice of language depends on the project's priorities:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item[-] \makebox[1.5cm]{\textbf{C\#}\hfill} for performance-sensitive systems
|
|
\item[-] \makebox[1.5cm]{\textbf{TypeScript}\hfill} for small, balanced utilities
|
|
\item[-] \makebox[1.5cm]{\textbf{Haskell}\hfill} for resource efficiency and code maintainability
|
|
\end{itemize}
|