# A Comparative Study of Programming Languages in Rosetta Code

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0252 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0252/

## Key facts

- Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2014.

## Built on by (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [LLAssist: Simple Tools for Automating Literature Review Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13993/) (2024)
- [End to End Software Engineering Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11858/) (2021)
- [Studying the Impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch Bindings on Machine Learning Software Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05466/) (2024)
- [PyResBugs: A Dataset of Residual Python Bugs for Natural Language-Driven Fault Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05777/) (2025)
- [How Small Transformation Expose the Weakness of Semantic Similarity Measures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09714/) (2025)
- [RLGT: A reinforcement learning framework for extremal graph theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17276/) (2026)
- [Content-Based Textual File Type Detection at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.08508/) (2021)
- [SINGA-Easy: An Easy-to-Use Framework for MultiModal Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.02572/) (2021)
- [VisualTextRank: Unsupervised Graph-based Content Extraction for Automating Ad Text to Image Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.02725/) (2021)
- [Text is NOT Enough: Integrating Visual Impressions into Open-domain Dialogue Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05778/) (2021)
- [Discovering Personalized Semantics for Soft Attributes in Recommender Systems using Concept Activation Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.02830/) (2022)
- [Reinforced MOOCs Concept Recommendation in Heterogeneous Information Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11011/) (2022)
- [Explanation-Guided Fairness Testing through Genetic Algorithm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.08335/) (2022)
- [Using Graph Neural Networks for Program Termination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.14648/) (2022)
- [Tribe or Not? Critical Inspection of Group Differences Using TribalGram](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.09664/) (2023)
- [CrossTL: A Universal Programming Language Translator with Unified Intermediate Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21256/) (2025)
- [FMI_SU_Yotkova_Kastreva at SemEval-2026 Task 13: Lightweight Detection of LLM-Generated Code via Stylometric Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04157/) (2026)
- [Semantic Overlays: Mitigating Prompt Injection with Annotations Beyond Tokens and Steering Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.23873/) (2026)
- [LangSelect: Cost-Aware Target-Language Routing for LLM Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18959/) (2026)

## 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.