mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Comparative Study of Programming Languages in Rosetta Code

arXiv 1409.0252 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2014cs.SEcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Sometimes debates on programming languages are more religious than scientific. Questions about which language is more succinct or efficient, or makes developers more productive are discussed with fervor, and their answers are too often based on anecdotes and unsubstantiated beliefs. In this study, we use the largely untapped research potential of Rosetta Code, a code repository of solutions to common programming tasks in various languages, to draw a fair and well-founded comparison. Rosetta Code offers a large data set for analysis. Our study is based on 7087 solution programs corresponding to 745 tasks in 8 widely used languages representing the major programming paradigms (procedural: C and Go; object-oriented: C# and Java; functional: F# and Haskell; scripting: Python and Ruby). Our statistical analysis reveals, most notably, that: functional and scripting languages are more concise than procedural and object-oriented languages; C is hard to beat when it comes to raw speed on large inputs, but performance differences over inputs of moderate size are less pronounced and allow even interpreted languages to be competitive; compiled strongly-typed languages, where more defects can be caught at compile time, are less prone to runtime failures than interpreted or weakly-typed languages. We discuss implications of these results for developers, language designers, and educators.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2014.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024LLAssist: Simple Tools for Automating Literature Review Using Large Language Modelscited by 4
  2. 2021End to End Software Engineering Researchcited by 2
  3. 2024Studying the Impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch Bindings on Machine Learning Software Qualitycited by 1
  4. 2025PyResBugs: A Dataset of Residual Python Bugs for Natural Language-Driven Fault Injectioncited by 1
  5. 2026RLGT: A reinforcement learning framework for extremal graph theorycited by 1
  6. 2021Content-Based Textual File Type Detection at Scalecited by 0
  7. 2021SINGA-Easy: An Easy-to-Use Framework for MultiModal Analysiscited by 0
  8. 2021VisualTextRank: Unsupervised Graph-based Content Extraction for Automating Ad Text to Image Searchcited by 0
  9. 2021Text is NOT Enough: Integrating Visual Impressions into Open-domain Dialogue Generationcited by 0
  10. 2022Discovering Personalized Semantics for Soft Attributes in Recommender Systems using Concept Activation Vectorscited by 0
  11. 2022Reinforced MOOCs Concept Recommendation in Heterogeneous Information Networkscited by 0
  12. 2022Explanation-Guided Fairness Testing through Genetic Algorithmcited by 0
7 more
  1. 2022Using Graph Neural Networks for Program Terminationcited by 0
  2. 2023Tribe or Not? Critical Inspection of Group Differences Using TribalGramcited by 0
  3. 2025CrossTL: A Universal Programming Language Translator with Unified Intermediate Representationcited by 0
  4. 2025How Small Transformation Expose the Weakness of Semantic Similarity Measurescited by 0
  5. 2026FMI_SU_Yotkova_Kastreva at SemEval-2026 Task 13: Lightweight Detection of LLM-Generated Code via Stylometric Signalscited by 0
  6. 2026Semantic Overlays: Mitigating Prompt Injection with Annotations Beyond Tokens and Steering Vectorscited by 0
  7. 2026LangSelect: Cost-Aware Target-Language Routing for LLM Code Generationcited by 0