Architecting LLM-Powered SDLC Platforms for Efficiency & Cost Optimization
Introduction
When software teams build AI-assisted development pipelines or deploy LLM coding agents, primary attention usually goes to model parameter size, context window length, or system prompts. However, an essential economic and operational factor is often overlooked: The Token Economy of Programming Languages.
Language choice significantly dictates both static context overhead and total interactive agent consumption. Empirical benchmarks reveal that code verbosity, symbol density, and subword tokenizer coverage create a massive spread in token consumption — ranging from 0.82× (Ruby) up to 2.24× relative to Python. Choosing a high-overhead language can inflate AI operational costs by over 100% and lead to frequent context truncation errors in complex workflows.
💡 Core Finding: Programming language choice directly produces a 2.7× spread in token consumption for equivalent business logic. In agentic workflows, behavioral overheads (such as compilation failures and correction loops) further compound this penalty, making verbose or lower-resource languages up to 2.6× more expensive across the full SDLC.
Project Structure and code samples for tests
Developed with IBM Bob, all code samples and benchmarking suites are open-sourced on GitHub. Feel free to explore the repository, test the benchmarks, or contribute improvements!
token-research/
├── README.md ← This file
├── requirements.txt ← Python dependencies (tiktoken, pytest)
├── .env.example ← Environment variable template
├── .gitignore ← Git exclusion rules
│
├── Docs/
│ ├── TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md ← Main 730-line research document
│ ├── Architecture.md ← Full architecture diagrams
│ ├── Quickstart.md ← Step-by-step setup guide
│ └── LANGUAGE_SELECTION_FOR_RESEARCH_TOOLING.md ← Engineering Decision Record
│
├── scripts/
│ ├── start.sh ← Launch pipeline in detached mode
│ └── stop.sh ← Graceful shutdown
│
├── input/ ← Input data (contents not tracked by git)
├── output/ ← Timestamped run logs (not tracked by git)
│
├── 01_tokenization_mechanics/
│ ├── bpe_tokenizer_demo.py
│ ├── token_counter.py
│ └── vocabulary_coverage_analysis.py
│
├── 02_language_comparison/
│ ├── token_ratio_calculator.py
│ ├── equivalent_task_samples/
│ │ ├── hello_world_tokens.py
│ │ ├── rest_api_stub_tokens.py
│ │ └── unit_test_tokens.py
│ └── ruby_equivalents/
│ ├── token_ratio_calculator.rb
│ └── identifier_length_analysis.rb
│
├── 03_sdlc_phase_simulation/
│ ├── sdlc_token_budget_model.py
│ ├── phase_cost_estimator.py
│ └── context_window_risk_analyzer.py
│
├── 04_verbosity_factors/
│ ├── boilerplate_overhead_demo.py
│ ├── type_annotation_impact.py
│ └── identifier_length_analysis.py
│
├── 05_optimization_strategies/
│ ├── prompt_compression_demo.py
│ ├── chunking_strategy_demo.py
│ └── token_aware_sdlc_pipeline.py
│
└── tests/
├── test_token_counter.py
├── test_token_ratio_calculator.py
└── test_bpe_tokenizer_demo.py
Tokenization Mechanics & System Architecture
Large Language Models do not read source code line-by-line; they process numerical token sequences generated by Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenizers (such as OpenAI’s cl100k_base or o200k_base). Tokenizers are statistically trained on vast text datasets. Because English prose and Python dominate these training corpora, Python code achieves high byte-per-token density (4.55 bytes/token), whereas symbol-dense or verbose languages suffer from heavy subword fragmentation.
Architecture Schema Flow
- Token Mechanics: Measures BPE Merges and Byte Densities.
- Language Comparison: Compares Static vs. Agentic multi-turn loops.
-
tiktoken Aggregator: Evaluates
cl100k_baseando200k_baseToken Densities. - SDLC Simulation & Optimization: Runs Budget/Risk Models and applies AST/Format Compression.
The Python utility below evaluates byte-per-token density using OpenAI’s cl100k_base encoder and provides a calibrated heuristic fallback:
from dataclasses import dataclass
import tiktoken
@dataclass
class TokenMetrics:
language: str
code: str
token_count: int
char_count: int
chars_per_token: float
class LanguageTokenAnalyzer:
"""Evaluates byte-per-token density using cl100k_base (GPT-4) encoding."""
def __init__(self, encoder_name: str = "cl100k_base"):
try:
self.encoder = tiktoken.get_encoding(encoder_name)
except Exception:
self.encoder = None
def analyze(self, language: str, code: str) -> TokenMetrics:
char_count = len(code)
if self.encoder:
tokens = self.encoder.encode(code)
token_count = len(tokens)
else:
token_count = max(1, int(char_count / 3.1))
chars_per_token = char_count / token_count if token_count > 0 else 0.0
return TokenMetrics(
language=language,
code=code,
token_count=token_count,
char_count=char_count,
chars_per_token=chars_per_token
)
Multi-Language Micro-Overhead Comparison
To evaluate subword tokenization and structural “token taxes” independent of business logic, program behavior (Hello World + Fibonacci Sum) is held constant across implementations:
- Ruby (Most Token-Efficient Baseline):
def fibonacci(n)
a, b, result = 0, 1, []
n.times { result << a; a, b = b, a + b }
result
end
puts "Hello, World!"
fibs = fibonacci(10)
puts "Fibonacci(10): #{fibs.inspect}"
puts "Sum: #{fibs.sum}"
- Python (Reference Baseline — 1.00×):
def fibonacci(n: int) -> list[int]:
a, b, result = 0, 1, []
for _ in range(n):
result.append(a)
a, b = b, a + b
return result
print("Hello, World!")
fibs = fibonacci(10)
print(f"Fibonacci(10): {fibs}")
print(f"Sum: {sum(fibs)}")
- TypeScript (Static Type Overhead — ~1.45×):
function fibonacci(n: number): number[] {
const result: number[] = [];
let a = 0, b = 1;
for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) {
result.push(a);
[a, b] = [b, a + b];
}
return result;
}
console.log("Hello, World!");
const fibs: number[] = fibonacci(10);
console.log(`Fibonacci(10): ${JSON.stringify(fibs)}`);
const total: number = fibs.reduce((acc: number, x: number): number => acc + x, 0);
console.log(`Sum: ${total}`);
- Java (OOP & Stream Overhead — ~1.47× Static):
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class HelloFibonacci {
public static List<Integer> fibonacci(int n) {
List<Integer> result = new ArrayList<>();
int a = 0, b = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
result.add(a);
int temp = a + b;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
return result;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello, World!");
List<Integer> fibs = fibonacci(10);
System.out.println("Fibonacci(10): " + fibs);
int total = fibs.stream().mapToInt(Integer::intValue).sum();
System.out.println("Sum: " + total);
}
}
- C (Manual Memory Management — ~1.77× Static):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int* fibonacci(int n) {
int* result = (int*)malloc(n * sizeof(int));
if (!result) return NULL;
int a = 0, b = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
result[i] = a;
int temp = a + b;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
return result;
}
int main(void) {
printf("Hello, World!\n");
int* fibs = fibonacci(10);
if (!fibs) return 1;
int total = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) total += fibs[i];
printf("Sum: %d\n", total);
free(fibs);
return 0;
}
Benchmark Rankings & Empirical Token Ratios
Combining static analysis of algorithmic tasks across standard implementations and multi-turn agentic coding benchmarks, empirical ratios relative to Python (1.00× baseline) are established:
| Language | Static Ratio vs Python | Agentic Session Ratio | Efficiency Rating | Primary Cost Drivers |
| -------------- | ------------------------ | --------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Ruby** | 0.82–0.95× MD | 0.95× MD | ★★★★★ MD | Minimal syntactic ceremony, concise expressiveness MD |
| **Python** | **1.00× (Baseline)** MD | **1.00×** MD | ★★★★★ MD | Dominant representation in LLM training corpora MD |
| **JavaScript** | 1.22–1.26× MD | 1.05× MD | ★★★★☆ MD | Dynamic typing; low boilerplate, high tokenizer coverage MD |
| **TypeScript** | 1.37–1.45× MD | 1.60× MD | ★★★☆☆ MD | Explicit type annotations add +35% to +60% token overhead MD |
| **Go** | 1.44–1.55× MD | 1.38× MD | ★★★☆☆ MD | Explicit error handling (`if err != nil`) multiplies line count MD |
| **Java** | 1.47–1.75× MD | 1.34× MD | ★★★☆☆ MD | OOP ceremony, explicit imports, verbose type signatures MD |
| **Rust** | 1.34–1.57× MD | 1.57× MD | ★★☆☆☆ MD | Ownership syntax, lifetime specifiers, agent correction loops MD |
| **C** | 1.77–2.24× MD | 2.20× MD | ★☆☆☆☆ MD | Manual memory management, header inclusions, 2.2× LOC MD |
SDLC Lifecycle Cost Compounding & Risk Modeling
In software development platforms, token costs compound exponentially over time because subsequent lifecycle tasks (code reviews, refactoring, test generation) process entire code artifacts repeatedly.
Lifecycle Token Growth Path
- Requirements Phase: ~2,000 tokens (Constant natural language baseline).
- Codegen Phase: Python ~6,000 tokens vs. Java ~10,000 tokens.
- Code Review Phase: Python ~8,000 tokens vs. C ~17,000 tokens.
- Refactoring Phase: Python ~10,000 tokens vs. C ~22,000 tokens.
Beyond direct API billing, excessive language overhead increases the risk of context truncation in long-running LLM loops. The analyzer script below measures subword fragmentation and checks code snippets against defined token limits.
To evaluate context window utilization and fragmentation risks across LLM providers, platform tooling uses risk analyzers:
import tiktoken
def calculate_fragmentation_rate(text: str) -> float:
"""Returns tokens-per-character. Higher rates denote severe subword fragmentation."""
enc = tiktoken.get_encoding("cl100k_base")
tokens = enc.encode(text)
return len(tokens) / len(text) if text else 0.0
def evaluate_co ntext_window(code_payload: str, max_context_tokens: int = 8192) -> dict:
enc = tiktoken.get_encoding("cl100k_base")
token_ids = enc.encode(code_payload)
total_tokens = len(token_ids)
return {
"total_tokens": total_tokens,
"frag_rate_tok_per_char": round(total_tokens / len(code_payload), 3),
"exceeds_limit": total_tokens > max_context_tokens,
"remaining_headroom": max_context_tokens - total_tokens
}
Compounding lifecycle models also account for static language expansion alongside agentic correction penalties:
from dataclasses import dataclass
@dataclass
class LanguageProfile:
name: str
multiplier: float # Static token multiplier vs. Python
agentic_overhead: float # Correction loop penalty
PROFILES = {
"Python": LanguageProfile("Python", 1.00, 1.00),
"Java": LanguageProfile("Java", 1.47, 1.24),
"Rust": LanguageProfile("Rust", 1.57, 1.27),
"C": LanguageProfile("C", 1.77, 1.55),
}
def calculate_feature_budget(profile: LanguageProfile, base_input: int, base_output: int) -> dict:
effective_gen_mult = profile.multiplier * profile.agentic_overhead
total_input = round(base_input * profile.multiplier)
total_output = round(base_output * effective_gen_mult)
return {
"language": profile.name,
"input_tokens": total_input,
"output_tokens": total_output,
"total_tokens": total_input + total_output
}
Optimization Strategies & Key Recommendations
To mitigate cost inflation and prevent premature context truncation when processing verbose enterprise codebases, AI platform engineering teams rely on five primary optimization strategies:
| Strategy | Target Languages | Savings / Impact | Mechanics | Primary SDLC Use Case |
| ------------------------ | ----------------------------- | ------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
| **Format Stripping** | Java, C, C++, Go, JS, TS MD | 15–35% input reduction MD | Collapses non-semantic whitespace and indentation MD | Preprocessing for long code files MD |
| **Comment Stripping** | C, Java, JS, TS, Go, Rust MD | 10–25% input reduction MD | Removes Javadoc/Doxygen (`/* */`, `//`) comments MD | Code Generation, Test Gen, Debugging MD |
| **Signature Extraction** | Python, Java, Go, etc. MD | 50–80% input reduction MD | Extracts signatures and truncates bodies to `...` MD | API Review & Documentation MD |
| **Token Chunking** | All languages MD | Eliminates context overrun MD | Splits files dynamically at clean function boundaries MD | Monorepos & large-file analysis MD |
| **Python Prototyping** | C, C++, Java, Rust, Go MD | Prevents agent stuck-loops MD | Generates solution in Python first, then translates MD | Complex algorithmic task generation MD |
Below is an automated sanitizer script designed to strip non-semantic Java formatting and Javadoc comments prior to prompt assembly:
import re
def strip_java_formatting(java_code: str) -> str:
"""Strips non-semantic formatting and Javadoc comments to minimize token cost."""
# Remove block comments and Javadocs
code = re.sub(r'/\*.*?\*/', '', java_code, flags=re.DOTALL)
# Remove single-line comments
code = re.sub(r'//.*', '', code)
# Collapse redundant whitespace
code = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', code)
return code.strip()
Sample Test
Run ./scripts/start.sh to execute the benchmark suite and test all concepts firsthand. You can review an excerpt of the generated execution log below.
================================================================
Token Research Pipeline — Started at Tue Aug 25 12:20:26 CEST 2026
Python: Python 3.12.10
Tiktoken: 0.14.0
================================================================
━━━ Running: bpe_tokenizer_demo.py ━━━
[INFO] Using tiktoken cl100k_base encoder (GPT-4 tokenizer).
======================================================================
BPE Tokenizer Demo — Token Counts Across Programming Languages
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §1
======================================================================
📊 Fibonacci + sum — Token count comparison
Language Tokens Chars Lines Chars/token Ratio vs Python
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 84 287 12 3.42 1.00×
JavaScript 101 307 13 3.04 1.20×
Java 141 586 22 4.16 1.68×
Go 124 379 22 3.06 1.48×
Rust 115 368 17 3.20 1.37×
C 191 573 27 3.00 2.27×
============================================================
BPE Training Demo: first 12 merges on toy corpus
Input length: 77 chars → 77 bytes
============================================================
Step 1: ' ' + ' ' → ' ' (freq=6, new_id=256)
Step 2: 'v' + 'a' → 'va' (freq=3, new_id=257)
Step 3: 'va' + 'l' → 'val' (freq=3, new_id=258)
Step 4: 'val' + 'u' → 'valu' (freq=3, new_id=259)
Step 5: 'valu' + 'e' → 'value' (freq=3, new_id=260)
Step 6: 's' + 'e' → 'se' (freq=3, new_id=261)
Step 7: 'se' + 'l' → 'sel' (freq=3, new_id=262)
Step 8: 'sel' + 'f' → 'self' (freq=3, new_id=263)
Step 9: 'n' + 'a' → 'na' (freq=3, new_id=264)
Step 10: 'na' + 'm' → 'nam' (freq=3, new_id=265)
Step 11: 'nam' + 'e' → 'name' (freq=3, new_id=266)
Step 12: 'self' + '.' → 'self.' (freq=2, new_id=267)
============================================================
BPE Training Demo: first 12 merges on toy corpus
Input length: 59 chars → 59 bytes
============================================================
Step 1: 'm' + 'e' → 'me' (freq=4, new_id=256)
Step 2: 'a' + 'me' → 'ame' (freq=4, new_id=257)
Step 3: 'n' + 'ame' → 'name' (freq=3, new_id=258)
Step 4: ' ' + ' ' → ' ' (freq=3, new_id=259)
Step 5: ' ' + 'name' → ' name' (freq=2, new_id=260)
Step 6: ' name' + ';' → ' name;' (freq=1, new_id=261)
Step 7: ' name;' + '
' → ' name;
' (freq=1, new_id=262)
Step 8: ' name;
' + '}' → ' name;
}' (freq=1, new_id=263)
Step 9: ' name;
}' + '
' → ' name;
}
' (freq=1, new_id=264)
Step 10: ' name' + ')' → ' name)' (freq=1, new_id=265)
Step 11: ' name)' + ' ' → ' name) ' (freq=1, new_id=266)
Step 12: ' name) ' + '{' → ' name) {' (freq=1, new_id=267)
✅ Key insight: After enough BPE merges on a Python-heavy corpus,
constructs like 'def ', 'self.', '__init__' become single tokens.
Java's 'public void ', 'String ', 'this.' patterns also merge,
but the class/method boilerplate still requires far more tokens.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2 for full ratio table.
✅ bpe_tokenizer_demo.py completed.
━━━ Running: token_counter.py ━━━
[INFO] tiktoken loaded — using cl100k_base (GPT-4) and o200k_base (GPT-4o).
======================================================================
Token Counter — Multi-Language Code Token Comparison
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §1 and §2
======================================================================
================================================================================
Min/Max Task — Token Counts [cl100k_base]
Tokenizer: cl100k_base | Baseline: Python
================================================================================
Language Tokens Chars Lines C/tok L/tok Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL 83 273 10 3.29 0.120 0.76×
Ruby 87 233 9 2.68 0.103 0.80×
Python 109 340 10 3.12 0.092 1.00×
JavaScript 113 357 14 3.16 0.124 1.04×
TypeScript 127 408 14 3.21 0.110 1.17×
Rust 152 458 17 3.01 0.112 1.39×
Java 192 766 22 3.99 0.115 1.76×
Go 210 635 33 3.02 0.157 1.93×
C 237 678 30 2.86 0.127 2.17×
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most expensive: C (2.17× baseline)
Most efficient: SQL (0.76× baseline)
================================================================================
================================================================================
Min/Max Task — Token Counts [o200k_base]
Tokenizer: o200k_base | Baseline: Python
================================================================================
Language Tokens Chars Lines C/tok L/tok Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL 83 273 10 3.29 0.120 0.75×
Ruby 88 233 9 2.65 0.102 0.80×
Python 110 340 10 3.09 0.091 1.00×
JavaScript 115 357 14 3.10 0.122 1.05×
TypeScript 129 408 14 3.16 0.109 1.17×
Rust 152 458 17 3.01 0.112 1.38×
Java 207 766 22 3.70 0.106 1.88×
Go 212 635 33 3.00 0.156 1.93×
C 237 678 30 2.86 0.127 2.15×
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most expensive: C (2.15× baseline)
Most efficient: SQL (0.75× baseline)
================================================================================
📄 CSV output (for token_ratio_calculator.py):
language,encoder,tokens,chars,lines,chars_per_token,lines_per_token,ratio_vs_baseline
SQL,cl100k_base,83,273,10,3.289,0.1205,0.7615
Ruby,cl100k_base,87,233,9,2.678,0.1034,0.7982
Python,cl100k_base,109,340,10,3.119,0.0917,1.0000
JavaScript,cl100k_base,113,357,14,3.159,0.1239,1.0367
TypeScript,cl100k_base,127,408,14,3.213,0.1102,1.1651
Rust,cl100k_base,152,458,17,3.013,0.1118,1.3945
Java,cl100k_base,192,766,22,3.990,0.1146,1.7615
Go,cl100k_base,210,635,33,3.024,0.1571,1.9266
C,cl100k_base ...
⚠️ Heuristic error demonstration:
Language Heuristic Actual Error%
---------------------------------------------
Python 110 109 -22.0%
JavaScript 121 113 -21.2%
TypeScript 151 127 -19.7%
Java 295 192 +0.0%
Go 231 210 -24.3%
Rust 180 152 -25.0%
C 295 237 -28.3%
Ruby 72 87 -33.3%
SQL 78 83 -18.1%
Negative error = naive heuristic UNDERESTIMATES actual token count.
For Java and C, the naive rule underestimates by 30–50%+.
✅ token_counter.py completed.
━━━ Running: vocabulary_coverage_analysis.py ━━━
======================================================================
Vocabulary Coverage Analysis
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §1.4
======================================================================
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
======================================================================
1. Language Keywords — Coverage Test
======================================================================
Category Tokens Chars Rate Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------
python_keyword 1 3 0.333 Python built-in keyword
→ 'def'
python_keyword 1 6 0.167 Python built-in keyword
→ 'import'
python_keyword 1 6 0.167 Python built-in keyword
→ 'return'
java_keyword 1 6 0.167 Java access modifier
→ 'public'
java_keyword 1 6 0.167 Java modifier
→ 'static'
java_keyword 1 4 0.250 Java return type
→ 'void'
rust_keyword 1 2 0.500 Rust function keyword
→ 'fn'
rust_keyword 1 4 0.250 Rust trait implementation keyword
→ 'impl'
go_keyword 1 4 0.250 Go function keyword
→ 'func'
ocaml_keyword 2 7 0.286 OCaml recursive binding
→ 'let' | ' rec'
haskell_keyword 1 5 0.200 Haskell where clause
→ 'where'
haskell_keyword 2 7 0.286 Haskell type declaration
→ 'new' | 'type'
======================================================================
2. Identifier Naming Conventions
======================================================================
Category Tokens Chars Rate Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------
snake_case 2 7 0.286 2-word Python identifier
→ 'user' | '_id'
snake_case 3 24 0.125 3-word Python identifier
→ 'calculate' | '_word' | '_frequency'
snake_case 4 26 0.154 4-word Python identifier
→ 'fetch' | '_api' | '_response' | '_payload'
camelCase 1 6 0.167 2-word Java identifier
→ 'userId'
camelCase 3 22 0.136 3-word Java identifier
→ 'calculate' | 'Word' | 'Frequency'
camelCase 3 23 0.130 4-word Java identifier
→ 'fetch' | 'ApiResponse' | 'Payload'
PascalCase 1 11 0.091 2-word class name
→ 'UserService'
PascalCase 3 26 0.115 4-word Java class name
→ 'Abstract' | 'UserService' | 'Factory'
SCREAMING_SNAKE 3 15 0.200 Java/C constant
→ 'MAX' | '_RETRY' | '_COUNT'
SCREAMING_SNAKE 4 28 0.143 Java constant
→ 'DEFAULT' | '_CONNECTION' | '_POOL' | '_SIZE'
go_short 1 1 1.000 Go request shorthand
→ 'r'
go_short 1 3 0.333 Go context shorthand
→ 'ctx'
go_short 1 3 0.333 Go error shorthand
→ 'err'
======================================================================
3. Language Syntax Patterns
======================================================================
Category Tokens Chars Rate Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------
python_syntax 6 19 0.316 Python constructor signature
→ 'def' | ' __' | 'init' | '__(' | 'self' | '):'
python_syntax 3 19 0.158 Python attribute access
→ 'self' | '.attribute' | '_name'
python_syntax 9 26 0.346 Python entry guard
→ 'if' | ' __' | 'name' | '__' | ' ==' | " '__" | 'main' | '__' | "':"
java_syntax 8 38 0.211 Java main signature
→ 'public' | ' static' | ' void' | ' main' | '(String' | '[]' | ' args' | ')'
java_syntax 3 18 0.167 Java print method
→ 'System' | '.out' | '.println'
java_syntax 3 20 0.150 Java field declaration prefix
→ 'private' | ' final' | ' String'
rust_syntax 10 39 0.256 Rust main signature
→ 'fn' | ' main' | '()' | ' ->' | ' Result' | '<(),' | ' Box' | '<dyn' | ' Error' | '>>'
rust_syntax 14 32 0.438 Rust impl with lifetime
→ 'impl' | "<'" | 'a' | ',' | ' T' | ':' | ' Trait' | '>' | ' Struct' | "<'" | 'a' | ',' | ' T' | '>'
rust_syntax 8 29 0.276 Rust nested generics
→ 'Vec' | '<HashMap' | '<String' | ',' | ' Vec' | '<u' | '8' | '>>>'
go_syntax 5 15 0.333 Go error check pattern
→ 'if' | ' err' | ' !=' | ' nil' | ' {'
go_syntax 16 63 0.254 Go method signature
ocaml_syntax 9 28 0.321 OCaml recursive function
→ 'let' | ' rec' | ' fold' | '_left' | ' f' | ' acc' | 'u' | ' l' | ' ='
ocaml_syntax 11 34 0.324 OCaml type declaration
→ 'type' | " '" | 'a' | ' option' | ' =' | ' None' | ' |' | ' Some' | ' of' | " '" | 'a'
c_syntax 14 42 0.333 C malloc call
→ 'int' | ' *' | 'ptr' | ' =' | ' (' | 'int' | ' *)' | 'malloc' | '(sizeof' | '(int' | ')' | ' *' | ' n' | ');'
c_syntax 8 29 0.276 C function pointer
→ 'void' | ' (*' | 'callback' | ')(' | 'int' | ',' | ' void' | ' *)'
======================================================================
4. High vs. Low Training Data Coverage
======================================================================
Category Tokens Chars Rate Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------
high_coverage 4 18 0.222 Python data science import
→ 'import' | ' numpy' | ' as' | ' np'
high_coverage 7 34 0.206 Node.js pattern
→ 'const' | ' express' | ' =' | ' require' | "('" | 'express' | "')"
high_coverage 9 32 0.281 Common SQL pattern
→ 'SELECT' | ' *' | ' FROM' | ' users' | ' WHERE' | ' id' | ' =' | ' ' | '1'
low_coverage 8 42 0.190 OCaml qualified name
→ 'let' | ' binding' | ' =' | ' module' | '_name' | '.Sub' | 'module' | '.create'
low_coverage 7 33 0.212 Haskell typeclass instance
→ 'instance' | ' Functor' | ' (' | 'Either' | ' a' | ')' | ' where'
low_coverage 11 56 0.196 Rust extern crate
→ 'extern' | ' crate' | ' serde' | ';' | ' use' | ' serde' | '::{' | 'Serialize' | ',' | ' Deserialize' | '};'
======================================================================
Identifier Naming Convention — Token Efficiency Analysis
======================================================================
Concept: 'User repository service'
Convention Tokens Chars Rate
-------------------------------------------------------
Python snake_case 3 23 0.130
→ 'user' | '_repository' | '_service'
Java camelCase 2 21 0.095
→ 'userRepository' | 'Service'
Java PascalCase class 3 21 0.143
→ 'User' | 'Repository' | 'Service'
C SCREAMING_SNAKE 4 23 0.174
→ 'USER' | '_RE' | 'POSITORY' | '_SERVICE'
Go abbreviated 2 7 0.286
→ 'user' | 'Svc'
Rust snake_case 3 23 0.130
→ 'user' | '_repository' | '_service'
Concept: 'Get user by ID'
Convention Tokens Chars Rate
-------------------------------------------------------
Python snake_case 4 14 0.286
→ 'get' | '_user' | '_by' | '_id'
Java camelCase 2 11 0.182
→ 'getUser' | 'ById'
Java verbose camelCase 5 26 0.192
→ 'find' | 'User' | 'Entity' | 'ById' | 'entifier'
Go abbreviated 2 11 0.182
→ 'getUser' | 'ByID'
C lowercase 4 14 0.286
→ 'get' | '_user' | '_by' | '_id'
======================================================================
Summary: Vocabulary Coverage Findings
======================================================================
1. WELL-COVERED constructs (low fragmentation rate, ~0.25–0.35 tok/char):
• Python keywords: def, import, return, class, if, for, with
• Common English words appearing frequently in code: user, name, value
• SQL keywords: SELECT, FROM, WHERE (high training data frequency)
• JavaScript patterns: const, let, function, console.log
2. POORLY-COVERED constructs (high fragmentation, 0.6–1.0+ tok/char):
• OCaml: type constructors, polymorphic variants, module signatures
• Haskell: type class instances, point-free notation, monadic bind (>>=)
• Rust: lifetime parameters ('a), complex generic bounds, macro syntax
• SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE identifiers (underscore disrupts merge patterns)
• Very long compound identifiers (AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean)
3. FORMATTING OVERHEAD (see TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.3):
• Java newlines: 18.7% of total tokens (Claude-3.7 measurement)
• Java indentation: ~7.9% of total tokens
• Python indentation: mandatory — cannot be removed (syntax rule)
• C comment blocks: up to 21% token savings from comment stripping
4. IDENTIFIER NAMING:
• snake_case and camelCase are similarly efficient for equal-length words
• SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE is ~50% less efficient per character
• Short Go-style names (ctx, err, r) are most token-efficient
• Long verbose Java-style names are most token-expensive
✅ vocabulary_coverage_analysis.py completed.
━━━ Running: token_ratio_calculator.py ━━━
======================================================================
Token Ratio Calculator — Language Efficiency Ranking
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2
======================================================================
====================================================================================================
TOKEN EFFICIENCY RANKING — All Languages vs. Python Baseline (1.00×)
Data sources: cross-lang-token-density, Wu et al. (2026), mame/ai-coding-lang-bench
====================================================================================================
Rank Language Rating Static Agentic Prod. Overall Range Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Ruby ★★★★★ N/A N/A 0.95× 0.95× 0.95–0.95× Slightly beats Python in production
2 Python ★★★★★ 1.00× N/A N/A 1.00× 1.00–1.00× ← Baseline
3 JavaScript ★★★★☆ 1.26× N/A 1.03× 1.15× 1.03–1.26×
4 C++ ★★★★☆ 1.20× N/A N/A 1.20× 1.20–1.20×
5 Java ★★★☆☆ 1.47× 1.23× 1.32× 1.30× 1.18–1.47×
6 Rust ★★★☆☆ 1.57× 1.24× 1.42× 1.34× 1.16–1.57×
7 Go ★★★☆☆ 1.55× N/A 1.32× 1.44× 1.32–1.55×
8 OCaml ★★★☆☆ N/A 1.42× 1.53× 1.45× 1.28–1.69× Compact code; high agent confusion cost
9 TypeScript ★★☆☆☆ 1.45× N/A 1.63× 1.54× 1.45–1.63×
10 C ★☆☆☆☆ 1.77× N/A 1.95× 1.86× 1.77–1.95× Most expensive; manual memory management
11 Haskell ★☆☆☆☆ N/A N/A 1.95× 1.95× 1.95–1.95×
====================================================================================================
Column definitions:
Static = direct token count of equivalent program text (no agent overhead)
Agentic = full agent session including failed attempts, revisions, stuck loops
Prod. = production benchmark (real API cost) including all overhead
Overall = mean across all available measurements for that language
Range = min–max observed ratio across all data points
Note: Agentic ratios diverge most from static ratios for low-resource languages
(OCaml, Haskell, Rust) because agent behavior — not syntax — drives the gap.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2.3 for detailed explanation.
======================================================================
TYPE SYSTEM IMPACT — Incremental Token Cost of Adding Type Checking
======================================================================
Transformation Static overhead Agentic overhead
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding TypeScript types to JS 1.15× 1.60×
Adding mypy strict to Python 1.00× 1.65×
Adding Steep type checker to Ruby 1.00× 2.60×
Interpretation:
The agentic overhead for typed variants is MUCH larger than the static overhead.
This is because the LLM must reason about type constraints, satisfy the type
checker, and iterate when type errors occur — generating many extra turns.
Ruby/Steep's 2.60× agentic overhead reflects low LLM familiarity with Steep.
======================================================================
Markdown Table (for embedding in reports):
======================================================================
| Rank | Language | Efficiency | Static | Agentic | Production | Overall | Range |
|:----:|----------|:----------:|:------:|:-------:|:----------:|:-------:|:-----:|
| 1 | **Ruby** | ★★★★★ | N/A | N/A | 0.95× | 0.95× | 0.95–0.95× |
| 2 | **Python** | ★★★★★ | 1.00× | N/A | N/A | 1.00× | 1.00–1.00× |
| 3 | **JavaScript** | ★★★★☆ | 1.26× | N/A | 1.03× | 1.15× | 1.03–1.26× |
| 4 | **C++** | ★★★★☆ | 1.20× | N/A | N/A | 1.20× | 1.20–1.20× |
| 5 | **Java** | ★★★☆☆ | 1.47× | 1.23× | 1.32× | 1.30× | 1.18–1.47× |
| 6 | **Rust** | ★★★☆☆ | 1.57× | 1.24× | 1.42× | 1.34× | 1.16–1.57× |
| 7 | **Go** | ★★★☆☆ | 1.55× | N/A | 1.32× | 1.44× | 1.32–1.55× |
| 8 | **OCaml** | ★★★☆☆ | N/A | 1.42× | 1.53× | 1.45× | 1.28–1.69× |
| 9 | **TypeScript** | ★★☆☆☆ | 1.45× | N/A | 1.63× | 1.54× | 1.45–1.63× |
| 10 | **C** | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1.77× | N/A | 1.95× | 1.86× | 1.77–1.95× |
| 11 | **Haskell** | ★☆☆☆☆ | N/A | N/A | 1.95× | 1.95× | 1.95–1.95× |
✅ Run the equivalent_task_samples/ scripts for direct token measurements.
These benchmark ratios are the aggregate from published research.
✅ token_ratio_calculator.py completed.
━━━ Running: hello_world_tokens.py ━━━
========================================================================
Hello World + Fibonacci — Multi-Language Token Count Comparison
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
========================================================================
Language Tokens Chars Lines C/tok Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
Ruby 89 260 12 2.92 0.82× ████████
Python 109 357 14 3.28 1.00× ██████████
JavaScript 133 417 16 3.14 1.22× ████████████
TypeScript 149 503 17 3.38 1.37× █████████████
Rust 150 485 21 3.23 1.38× █████████████
Go 161 486 26 3.02 1.48× ██████████████
Java 191 776 28 4.06 1.75× █████████████████
C 244 744 33 3.05 2.24× ██████████████████████
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most tokens: C 244 (2.24× Python)
Fewest tokens:Ruby 89 (0.82× Python)
💡 Key observation: C requires 2.7×
the tokens of Ruby for identical logic.
Note: TypeScript vs JavaScript overhead = purely type annotations.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.2 for type annotation analysis.
✅ hello_world_tokens.py completed.
━━━ Running: rest_api_stub_tokens.py ━━━
========================================================================
REST API Stub — Token Count Comparison Across 5 Language/Frameworks
Task: GET /users/{id} with error handling and data model
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2 & §3
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
========================================================================
Name Tokens Chars Lines C/tok Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Python (Flask) 205 718 29 3.50 1.00× ████████
TypeScript (Express) 234 832 34 3.56 1.14× █████████
Go (Gin) 250 866 42 3.46 1.22× █████████
Rust (Actix-web) 363 1,324 49 3.65 1.77× ██████████████
Java (Spring Boot) 382 1,843 69 4.82 1.86× ██████████████
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most expensive: Java (Spring Boot) (382 tokens = 1.86× Python/Flask)
Least expensive: Python (Flask) (205 tokens = 1.00× baseline)
💡 Analysis:
• Python/Flask wins on token efficiency due to:
- No mandatory class boilerplate (just decorated functions)
- Implicit JSON serialization via dataclass + jsonify
- No explicit type annotations required
• Java/Spring Boot is the most verbose because:
- Separate files per class (Controller, Service, Model)
- Explicit getters/setters for each field
- @Annotation overhead throughout
- Explicit Optional<> type wrapping
• Go/Gin's verbosity comes from:
- Explicit error handling after every fallible operation
- Manual type parsing (strconv.Atoi)
- No implicit JSON serialization (struct tags required)
• Rust/Actix-web is expensive due to:
- Async/await boilerplate (#[actix_web::main])
- Mutex<HashMap<>> shared state pattern
- Derive macros (Serialize, Deserialize) on every struct
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4 for detailed factor analysis.
✅ rest_api_stub_tokens.py completed.
━━━ Running: unit_test_tokens.py ━━━
========================================================================
Unit Test Suite — Token Count Comparison Across 6 Frameworks
Task: Stack push/pop/overflow/underflow tests (same 6 test cases)
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §2 & §3
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
========================================================================
Name Tokens Chars Lines C/tok Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Python (pytest) 318 1,260 54 3.96 1.00× ████████
C++ (GoogleTest) 399 1,415 58 3.55 1.25× ██████████
JavaScript (Jest) 404 1,756 63 4.35 1.27× ██████████
Rust (cargo test) 422 1,642 69 3.89 1.33× ██████████
Go (testing) 580 1,975 80 3.41 1.82× ██████████████
Java (JUnit 5) 604 2,704 102 4.48 1.90× ███████████████
💡 Test Generation Implications (TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §3):
• Java test files are significantly larger due to:
- @Test, @BeforeEach, @Nested, @DisplayName annotations
- Explicit generic type parameters on every assertion
- @ParameterizedTest + @MethodSource requiring separate stream methods
• Python/pytest is the baseline winner because:
- No class required (just functions)
- @pytest.fixture replaces @BeforeEach with zero overhead
- assert keyword vs. assertEquals/assertFalse/assertTrue verbosity
• Go's table-driven tests are verbose but idiomatic:
- Explicit error checking after every operation (if err != nil)
- Manual comparison in test body (no matcher library)
• Rust's #[cfg(test)] approach is moderately efficient:
- Built-in to the language, no external framework imports
- assert_eq!/assert! macros are compact
- unwrap() pattern adds minor overhead
✅ unit_test_tokens.py completed.
━━━ Running: sdlc_token_budget_model.py ━━━
================================================================================
SDLC Token Budget Model
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §3
Model: 10-feature project, ~500 LOC per feature
================================================================================
====================================================================================================
PER-FEATURE TOKEN CONSUMPTION BY SDLC PHASE
(tokens shown per feature; multiply by num_features for project total)
====================================================================================================
Phase Python JavaScript Java Go Rust C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements Analysis 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300
Architecture Design 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Code Generation 6,500 7,032 9,791 9,320 10,476 13,474
Code Review 6,700 7,250 9,285 9,725 9,835 10,935
Refactoring 9,500 10,599 15,553 15,423 16,823 21,196
Test Generation 6,500 7,266 10,790 10,618 11,689 14,912
Documentation 6,250 6,600 7,895 8,175 8,245 8,945
Debugging 5,800 6,439 9,161 9,269 9,869 12,018
Deployment Config 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (per feature) 49,050 52,986 70,275 70,330 74,737 89,280
Ratio vs Python 1.00× 1.08× 1.43× 1.43× 1.52× 1.82×
====================================================================================================
================================================================================
PROJECT SUMMARY (10 features)
================================================================================
Language Input tok Output tok Total Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Python 278,000 212,500 490,500 1.00×
JavaScript 299,000 230,860 529,860 1.08×
Java 376,700 326,050 702,750 1.43×
Go 393,500 309,800 703,300 1.43×
Rust 397,700 349,670 747,370 1.52×
C 439,700 453,100 892,800 1.82×
Estimated API costs (GPT-4o: $2.50/M input, $10.00/M output):
Language Input cost Output cost Total cost
------------------------------------------------------
Python $ 0.70 $ 2.12 $ 2.82
JavaScript $ 0.75 $ 2.31 $ 3.06
Java $ 0.94 $ 3.26 $ 4.20
Go $ 0.98 $ 3.10 $ 4.08
Rust $ 0.99 $ 3.50 $ 4.49
C $ 1.10 $ 4.53 $ 5.63
================================================================================
💡 Key findings from this model:
1. Code Review and Refactoring are the most token-intensive phases for static-typed
languages because entire files must be in context (high input token cost).
2. Test Generation compounds the language penalty: tests mirror production code
verbosity, doubling the effective penalty for boilerplate-heavy languages.
3. The Debugging phase is unpredictable — for unfamiliar languages, multiple
agent turns may be needed to interpret stack traces and write correct fixes.
4. Deployment Config is largely language-agnostic (YAML/Docker is universal),
so it provides little differentiation between language choices.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §3 for the full SDLC phase analysis.
✅ sdlc_token_budget_model.py completed.
━━━ Running: phase_cost_estimator.py ━━━
================================================================================
Phase Cost Estimator
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §3 & §5
================================================================================
==========================================================================================
Cost Estimate: Python × Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic)
Project: 10 features | Input: $3.00/M | Output: $15.00/M
Cache rate: $0.300/M (input cache hits)
==========================================================================================
Phase InputTok OutTok Baseline + Cache + FmtStrip Optimized Saving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements 15,000 8,000 $ 0.165 $ 0.141 $ 0.165 $ 0.141 14.7%
Architecture Design 20,000 15,000 $ 0.285 $ 0.253 $ 0.285 $ 0.253 11.4%
Code Generation 25,000 40,000 $ 0.675 $ 0.634 $ 0.675 $ 0.634 6.0%
Code Review 55,000 12,000 $ 0.345 $ 0.256 $ 0.340 $ 0.253 26.5%
Refactoring 50,000 45,000 $ 0.825 $ 0.744 $ 0.820 $ 0.742 10.1%
Test Generation 30,000 35,000 $ 0.615 $ 0.566 $ 0.612 $ 0.565 8.1%
Documentation 35,000 25,000 $ 0.480 $ 0.423 $ 0.477 $ 0.422 12.1%
Debugging 40,000 18,000 $ 0.390 $ 0.325 $ 0.386 $ 0.323 17.1%
Deployment Config 8,000 12,000 $ 0.204 $ 0.191 $ 0.204 $ 0.191 6.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 3.984 $ 3.534 $ 3.964 $ 3.524 11.5%
Combined optimization saves $0.460 (11.5%) vs. baseline
==========================================================================================
Cost Estimate: Java × Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic)
Project: 10 features | Input: $3.00/M | Output: $15.00/M
Cache rate: $0.300/M (input cache hits)
==========================================================================================
Phase InputTok OutTok Baseline + Cache + FmtStrip Optimized Saving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements 15,000 8,336 $ 0.170 $ 0.146 $ 0.170 $ 0.146 14.3%
Architecture Design 20,000 15,630 $ 0.294 $ 0.262 $ 0.294 $ 0.262 11.0%
Code Generation 25,000 55,120 $ 0.902 $ 0.861 $ 0.902 $ 0.861 4.5%
Code Review 75,680 12,504 $ 0.415 $ 0.292 $ 0.369 $ 0.271 34.6%
Refactoring 68,800 62,010 $ 1.137 $ 1.025 $ 1.095 $ 1.006 11.5%
Test Generation 41,280 48,230 $ 0.847 $ 0.780 $ 0.823 $ 0.769 9.2%
Documentation 48,160 26,050 $ 0.535 $ 0.457 $ 0.506 $ 0.444 17.1%
Debugging 55,040 24,804 $ 0.537 $ 0.448 $ 0.504 $ 0.433 19.4%
Deployment Config 8,000 16,536 $ 0.272 $ 0.259 $ 0.272 $ 0.259 4.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 5.109 $ 4.531 $ 4.936 $ 4.451 12.9%
Combined optimization saves $0.658 (12.9%) vs. baseline
================================================================================
CROSS-LANGUAGE COST COMPARISON — GPT-4o
10 features | Baseline = Python
================================================================================
Language Baseline$ Optimized$ Ratio Saving
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby $ 2.704 $ 2.487 0.97× 8.0%
Python $ 2.795 $ 2.575 1.00× 7.9%
JavaScript $ 2.879 $ 2.633 1.03× 8.6%
Go $ 3.477 $ 3.157 1.24× 9.2%
TypeScript $ 3.478 $ 3.164 1.24× 9.0%
Java $ 3.585 $ 3.216 1.28× 10.3%
OCaml $ 3.668 $ 3.378 1.31× 7.9%
Rust $ 3.697 $ 3.374 1.32× 8.7%
C++ $ 3.760 $ 3.414 1.35× 9.2%
C $ 4.246 $ 3.846 1.52× 9.4%
Python baseline: $2.795 unoptimized → $2.575 optimized
💡 Interpretation:
• The "Optimized" column applies BOTH prompt caching AND format stripping.
• Claude's cache rate ($0.30/M) provides the highest savings percentage
because the full input rate is $3.00/M — a 90% discount on cache hits.
• Format stripping helps Java most (25% input saving) and Python least (4%).
• Even optimized Java costs ~1.35× optimized Python on Claude Sonnet.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §6 for all optimization strategies.
✅ phase_cost_estimator.py completed.
━━━ Running: context_window_risk_analyzer.py ━━━
===========================================================================
Context Window Risk Analyzer
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §3.3 & §5.3
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Max File Size in Context Window — GPT-4o
(with 8,000 tokens reserved for system prompt + output)
===========================================================================
Language Available tok Max chars Max LOC Tok/LOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
SQL 120,000 419,580 9,324 12.87
Ruby 120,000 389,610 13,915 8.62
Python 120,000 371,517 11,610 10.34
PHP 120,000 360,360 10,010 11.99
JavaScript 120,000 353,982 10,411 11.53
OCaml 120,000 336,134 11,204 10.71
Go 120,000 329,670 8,676 13.83
Haskell 120,000 329,670 11,774 10.19
TypeScript 120,000 324,324 8,108 14.80
C++ 120,000 318,302 8,376 14.33
Java 120,000 311,688 7,421 16.17
Rust 120,000 306,122 7,653 15.68
C 120,000 275,862 7,663 15.66
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Max File Size in Context Window — Claude Sonnet 4.5
(with 12,000 tokens reserved for system prompt + output)
===========================================================================
Language Available tok Max chars Max LOC Tok/LOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
SQL 188,000 657,343 14,608 12.87
Ruby 188,000 610,390 21,800 8.62
Python 188,000 582,043 18,189 10.34
PHP 188,000 564,565 15,682 11.99
JavaScript 188,000 554,572 16,311 11.53
OCaml 188,000 526,611 17,554 10.71
Go 188,000 516,484 13,592 13.83
Haskell 188,000 516,484 18,446 10.19
TypeScript 188,000 508,108 12,703 14.80
C++ 188,000 498,674 13,123 14.33
Java 188,000 488,312 11,626 16.17
Rust 188,000 479,592 11,990 15.68
C 188,000 432,184 12,005 15.66
===========================================================================
====================================================================================================
CONTEXT WINDOW RISK MATRIX — GPT-4o, File size: 500 LOC
====================================================================================================
Phase Python JavaScript Java Go Rust C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements ✅ 6% ✅ 6% ✅ 8% ✅ 7% ✅ 8% ✅ 8%
Architecture Design ✅ 6% ✅ 7% ✅ 9% ✅ 8% ✅ 8% ✅ 8%
Code Generation ✅ 6% ✅ 7% ✅ 9% ✅ 8% ✅ 8% ✅ 8%
Code Review ✅ 7% ✅ 8% ✅ 9% ✅ 9% ✅ 9% ✅ 9%
Refactoring ✅ 8% ✅ 8% ✅ 10% ✅ 9% ✅ 10% ✅ 10%
Test Generation ✅ 7% ✅ 7% ✅ 9% ✅ 8% ✅ 9% ✅ 9%
Documentation ✅ 6% ✅ 7% ✅ 9% ✅ 8% ✅ 8% ✅ 8%
Debugging ✅ 9% ✅ 9% ✅ 11% ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 11%
Deployment Config ✅ 6% ✅ 6% ✅ 8% ✅ 7% ✅ 8% ✅ 8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: ✅ LOW (<50%) | ⚠️ MEDIUM (50–70%) | 🔴 HIGH (70–90%) | 💥 CRITICAL (>90%)
====================================================================================================
CONTEXT WINDOW RISK MATRIX — GPT-4o, File size: 1,000 LOC
====================================================================================================
Phase Python JavaScript Java Go Rust C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 14% ✅ 12% ✅ 14% ✅ 14%
Architecture Design ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 15% ✅ 13% ✅ 15% ✅ 15%
Code Generation ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 15% ✅ 13% ✅ 15% ✅ 15%
Code Review ✅ 11% ✅ 12% ✅ 16% ✅ 14% ✅ 15% ✅ 15%
Refactoring ✅ 12% ✅ 13% ✅ 17% ✅ 15% ✅ 16% ✅ 16%
Test Generation ✅ 11% ✅ 12% ✅ 15% ✅ 14% ✅ 15% ✅ 15%
Documentation ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 15% ✅ 13% ✅ 15% ✅ 15%
Debugging ✅ 13% ✅ 14% ✅ 17% ✅ 15% ✅ 17% ✅ 17%
Deployment Config ✅ 10% ✅ 11% ✅ 14% ✅ 12% ✅ 14% ✅ 14%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: ✅ LOW (<50%) | ⚠️ MEDIUM (50–70%) | 🔴 HIGH (70–90%) | 💥 CRITICAL (>90%)
====================================================================================================
CONTEXT WINDOW RISK MATRIX — GPT-4o, File size: 2,000 LOC
====================================================================================================
Phase Python JavaScript Java Go Rust C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements ✅ 18% ✅ 20% ✅ 27% ✅ 23% ✅ 26% ✅ 26%
Architecture Design ✅ 18% ✅ 20% ✅ 28% ✅ 24% ✅ 27% ✅ 27%
Code Generation ✅ 18% ✅ 20% ✅ 28% ✅ 24% ✅ 27% ✅ 27%
Code Review ✅ 19% ✅ 21% ✅ 28% ✅ 25% ✅ 28% ✅ 28%
Refactoring ✅ 20% ✅ 22% ✅ 29% ✅ 26% ✅ 28% ✅ 28%
Test Generation ✅ 19% ✅ 21% ✅ 28% ✅ 24% ✅ 27% ✅ 27%
Documentation ✅ 18% ✅ 20% ✅ 28% ✅ 24% ✅ 27% ✅ 27%
Debugging ✅ 21% ✅ 23% ✅ 30% ✅ 26% ✅ 29% ✅ 29%
Deployment Config ✅ 18% ✅ 20% ✅ 27% ✅ 23% ✅ 26% ✅ 26%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: ✅ LOW (<50%) | ⚠️ MEDIUM (50–70%) | 🔴 HIGH (70–90%) | 💥 CRITICAL (>90%)
===========================================================================
CHUNKING THRESHOLDS — GPT-4o
(LOC at which Code Review phase becomes HIGH or CRITICAL risk)
===========================================================================
Language MEDIUM (50%) HIGH (70%) CRITICAL (90%)
------------------------------------------------------------
C 3,832 LOC 5,467 LOC 7,101 LOC
Go 4,338 LOC 6,189 LOC 8,040 LOC
Java 3,711 LOC 5,294 LOC 6,877 LOC
JavaScript 5,206 LOC 7,427 LOC 9,648 LOC
Python 5,805 LOC 8,282 LOC 10,759 LOC
Rust 3,827 LOC 5,460 LOC 7,092 LOC
Interpretation:
Files below the MEDIUM threshold: safe to send whole.
Files in MEDIUM zone: consider format stripping and comment removal.
Files in HIGH zone: use targeted extraction (function + dependencies).
Files in CRITICAL zone: mandatory chunking required.
For reference: a typical enterprise Java service class is 300–800 LOC.
Java reaches HIGH risk at much smaller files than Python due to token density.
===========================================================================
CHUNKING THRESHOLDS — Claude Sonnet 4.5
(LOC at which Code Review phase becomes HIGH or CRITICAL risk)
===========================================================================
Language MEDIUM (50%) HIGH (70%) CRITICAL (90%)
------------------------------------------------------------
C 6,131 LOC 8,685 LOC 11,239 LOC
Go 6,941 LOC 9,833 LOC 12,725 LOC
Java 5,937 LOC 8,411 LOC 10,885 LOC
JavaScript 8,329 LOC 11,800 LOC 15,270 LOC
Python 9,288 LOC 13,158 LOC 17,028 LOC
Rust 6,123 LOC 8,674 LOC 11,225 LOC
Interpretation:
Files below the MEDIUM threshold: safe to send whole.
Files in MEDIUM zone: consider format stripping and comment removal.
Files in HIGH zone: use targeted extraction (function + dependencies).
Files in CRITICAL zone: mandatory chunking required.
For reference: a typical enterprise Java service class is 300–800 LOC.
Java reaches HIGH risk at much smaller files than Python due to token density.
✅ context_window_risk_analyzer.py completed.
━━━ Running: boilerplate_overhead_demo.py ━━━
======================================================================
Boilerplate Overhead Demo
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.1
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
======================================================================
======================================================================
1. Empty Function — Structural Overhead
======================================================================
Language Total Logic Boilerplate Overhead% Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Python 8 2 6 75.0% 1.00× ███████████████
JavaScript 10 2 8 80.0% 1.25× ████████████████
Go 12 2 10 83.3% 1.50× ████████████████
Java 12 2 10 83.3% 1.50× ████████████████
TypeScript 13 2 11 84.6% 1.62× ████████████████
C 13 2 11 84.6% 1.62× ████████████████
Rust 26 1 25 96.2% 3.25× ███████████████████
======================================================================
2. Minimal Class (1 field + getter) — Boilerplate Tax
======================================================================
Language Total Logic Boilerplate Overhead% Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 28 4 24 85.7% 0.82× █████████████████
Python 34 4 30 88.2% 1.00× █████████████████
TypeScript 38 4 34 89.5% 1.12× █████████████████
Java 39 4 35 89.7% 1.15× █████████████████
Go 43 4 39 90.7% 1.26× ██████████████████
C++ 45 4 41 91.1% 1.32× ██████████████████
Rust 51 4 47 92.2% 1.50× ██████████████████
C 65 4 61 93.8% 1.91× ██████████████████
======================================================================
3. Program Entry Point — Structural Requirement
======================================================================
Language Total Logic Boilerplate Overhead% Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Python 7 0 7 100.0% 1.00× ████████████████████
Ruby 7 0 7 100.0% 1.00× ████████████████████
TypeScript 8 0 8 100.0% 1.14× ████████████████████
JavaScript 9 0 9 100.0% 1.29× ████████████████████
Rust 10 0 10 100.0% 1.43× ████████████████████
Go 17 0 17 100.0% 2.43× ████████████████████
C++ 19 0 19 100.0% 2.71× ████████████████████
C 21 0 21 100.0% 3.00× ████████████████████
Java 22 0 22 100.0% 3.14× ████████████████████
💡 Key findings:
EMPTY FUNCTION:
Python and Ruby require the minimum structural tokens — just the function
keyword, name, and body. Java requires public/Object/return each as separate
tokens plus braces and semicolons. Rust requires explicit return type annotation.
MINIMAL CLASS:
Java's class is the most boilerplate-heavy because:
- 'public class' access + type declaration
- 'private final' per field
- Explicit constructor with parameter type annotation
- 'public String getName()' with full return type
Python's class is lean: 'def' + 'self' + ':' and no access modifiers.
ENTRY POINT:
Python and Ruby have ZERO boilerplate — you just write code.
Java requires 'public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { ... } }'
even for a one-liner program — a structural tax that applies to every generated file.
This boilerplate overhead accumulates across every function, class, and file
in a project, driving the 1.47× static token ratio for Java vs Python.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4 for the full factor analysis.
✅ boilerplate_overhead_demo.py completed.
━━━ Running: type_annotation_impact.py ━━━
========================================================================
Type Annotation Impact Analysis
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.2
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
========================================================================
Transformation Before After +Tokens Overhead% Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python (untyped) → Python (PEP 484 hints) 130 195 +65 50.0% 1.50×
Python (PEP 484 hints) → Python (mypy strict) 195 286 +91 46.7% 1.47×
Python (untyped) → Python (mypy strict) 130 286 +156 120.0% 2.20×
JavaScript (dynamic) → TypeScript (typed) 131 184 +53 40.5% 1.40×
Ruby (untyped) → Ruby (Steep annotated) 94 239 +145 154.3% 2.54×
💡 Analysis:
STATIC TOKEN OVERHEAD (these numbers):
Adding PEP 484 type hints to Python adds ~15–30% tokens (static).
JavaScript → TypeScript adds ~30–45% tokens (static).
Ruby → Steep adds ~20–35% tokens (static) for explicit annotations.
AGENTIC OVERHEAD (from benchmark data, not measured here):
The production cost multiplier is significantly higher because:
1. The LLM must generate type-correct code on the first try
2. When type errors occur, additional correction turns are needed
3. Less-familiar type checkers (Steep > mypy) require more iterations
Published production cost multipliers (Claude Opus 4.6):
• Python → Python/mypy strict: 1.6–1.7× (mame benchmark)
• JavaScript → TypeScript: 1.6× (mame benchmark)
• Ruby → Ruby/Steep: 2.0–3.2× (mame benchmark)
The static overhead here represents only the annotation tokens themselves.
The agentic overhead includes reasoning cost, which can be 2–4× larger.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.2 for the full table.
✅ type_annotation_impact.py completed.
━━━ Running: identifier_length_analysis.py ━━━
================================================================================
Identifier Length Analysis
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.4
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
================================================================================
=========================================================================================================
Token Count by Naming Convention (same concept, different style)
=========================================================================================================
Concept snake_case camelCase PascalCase SCREAMING_SNAKE Go-short
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
user user (1t) user (1t) User (1t)
USER (1t) use (1t)
user id user_id (2t) userId (1t) UserId (1t)
USER_ID (2t) userI (2t)
user name user_name (2t) userName (1t) UserName (1t)
USER_NAME (2t) userN (2t)
get user get_user (2t) getUser (1t) GetUser (2t)
GET_USER (2t) getU (2t)
create user create_user (2t) createUser (2t) CreateUser (2t)
CREATE_USER (2t) createU (2t)
update user profile update_user_profile (3t) updateUserProfile (2t) UpdateUserProfile (2t)
UPDATE_USER_PROFILE (3t) updateUP (2t)
delete user account delete_user_account (3t) deleteUserAccount (3t) DeleteUserAccount (3t)
DELETE_USER_ACCOUNT (3t) deleteUA (2t)
http request handler http_request_handler (3t) httpRequestHandler (3t) HttpRequestHandler (2t)
HTTP_REQUEST_HANDLER (3t) httpRH (2t)
database connection pool database_connection_pool (3t) databaseConnectionPool (3t) DatabaseConnectionPool (3t)
DATABASE_CONNECTION_POOL (3t) databaseCP (2t)
authentication token validator authentication_token_validator (3t) authenticationTokenValidator (3t) AuthenticationTokenValidator (3t)
AUTHENTICATION_TOKEN_VALIDATOR (5t) authenticationTV (2t)
process payment transaction process_payment_transaction (3t) processPaymentTransaction (3t) ProcessPaymentTransaction (3t)
PROCESS_PAYMENT_TRANSACTION (3t) processPT (2t)
maximum retry count maximum_retry_count (3t) maximumRetryCount (3t) MaximumRetryCount (3t)
MAXIMUM_RETRY_COUNT (4t) maximumRC (2t)
default timeout milliseconds default_timeout_milliseconds (4t) defaultTimeoutMilliseconds (3t) DefaultTimeoutMilliseconds (3t)
DEFAULT_TIMEOUT_MILLISECONDS (4t) defaultTM (2t)
abstract factory pattern abstract_factory_pattern (3t) abstractFactoryPattern (3t) AbstractFactoryPattern (3t)
ABSTRACT_FACTORY_PATTERN (4t) abstractFP (2t)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean tokens/char:
snake_case: 0.173 tok/char
camelCase: 0.153 tok/char
SCREAMING_SNAKE: 0.184 tok/char ← least efficient
Go-short: 0.282 tok/char ← most efficient
================================================================================
Token Boundary Analysis — Where BPE Draws the Lines
================================================================================
user_id → 2 tok 'user' | '_id'
[Python] Common pattern → efficient merge
userId → 1 tok 'userId'
[Java] CamelCase → similar to snake
USER_ID → 2 tok 'USER' | '_ID'
[Java] Constant → worst fragmentation
getUserById → 2 tok 'getUser' | 'ById'
[Java] Common method pattern
get_user_by_id → 4 tok 'get' | '_user' | '_by' | '_id'
[Python] Snake equivalent
AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean → 5 tok 'Abstract' | 'Singleton' | 'Proxy' | 'Factory' | 'Bean'
[Java] Famous verbose Java name
AbstractSingProxyFactory → 4 tok 'Abstract' | 'Sing' | 'Proxy' | 'Factory'
[Java] Same but abbreviated
calculateWordFrequency → 3 tok 'calculate' | 'Word' | 'Frequency'
[Java] 3-word camelCase
calculate_word_frequency → 3 tok 'calculate' | '_word' | '_frequency'
[Python] 3-word snake_case
CALCULATE_WORD_FREQUENCY → 5 tok 'CAL' | 'C' | 'ULATE' | '_WORD' | '_FREQUENCY'
[Java] 3-word SCREAMING
ctx → 1 tok 'ctx'
[Go] Common Go abbreviation
err → 1 tok 'err'
[Go] Go error variable
httpResponseWriter → 3 tok 'http' | 'Response' | 'Writer'
[Go] Go HTTP handler param
http_response_writer → 3 tok 'http' | '_response' | '_writer'
[Python] Python equivalent
HTTP_RESPONSE_WRITER → 4 tok 'HTTP' | '_RESPONSE' | '_WR' | 'ITER'
[Python] Python constant style
================================================================================
Java Enterprise Naming Patterns — Token Cost Analysis
================================================================================
Class name Tokens Chars Tok/char
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AbstractBeanFactory 3 19 0.158 Spring core class
AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory 8 34 0.235 Spring core class (real)
DefaultListableBeanFactory 5 26 0.192 Spring core class (real)
DispatcherServletWebApplicationContext 4 38 0.105 Spring MVC class (real)
JpaRepositoryFactoryBean 4 24 0.167 Spring Data class (real)
TransactionAttributeSourceAdvisor 4 33 0.121 Spring AOP class (real)
AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean 5 33 0.152 Spring classic (real)
ApplicationContextAwareProcessor 3 32 0.094 Spring lifecycle (real)
These are real Spring Framework class names. In a Java codebase that imports
and uses these classes, each occurrence of the full class name consumes the
tokens shown above. In a 500-LOC Spring service class, dozens of such names
can appear multiple times, contributing meaningfully to token overhead.
💡 Summary:
1. Naming convention is a CONTROLLABLE token factor — unlike language syntax.
2. SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE is the least token-efficient (~50% worse per char).
3. Go-style short names (ctx, err, r) are the most efficient but reduce clarity.
4. Java enterprise patterns (AbstractXxxFactoryBean) are particularly expensive.
5. TOKDRIFT research shows that identifier style changes can alter LLM output
predictions by up to 60% — it's not just a cost issue, it's a reliability issue.
Recommendation: Prefer standard snake_case or camelCase identifiers in code
sent to LLMs. Avoid SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE in prompts unless required by context.
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §4.4 for full discussion.
✅ identifier_length_analysis.py completed.
━━━ Running: prompt_compression_demo.py ━━━
========================================================================
Prompt Compression Demo
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §6
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
========================================================================
Technique Language Before After Saving Saving%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Format stripping Java 416 375 +41 9.9%
Comment stripping Java 416 195 +221 53.1%
Comments + Format strip Java 416 171 +245 58.9%
Comment stripping C 275 142 +133 48.4%
Inline comment strip Python 266 242 +24 9.0%
Signature extraction Python 266 63 +203 76.3%
💡 Key findings:
FORMAT STRIPPING (Java):
Removing blank lines and leading whitespace from Java code saves ~15–20%
of input tokens with no semantic change. The LLM understands the code
equivalently with or without formatting (Pan et al. 2025 finding).
Python cannot benefit from this — its indentation is syntax.
COMMENT STRIPPING:
Java Javadoc comments are verbose (/** @param @return @throws */).
Removing them from INPUT prompts (not from generated output) saves
10–25% tokens. C achieves similar savings from doxygen-style comments.
COMBINED (Format + Comments):
The combined saving for Java can reach 25–40% of input tokens.
At Claude Sonnet pricing ($3/M input), this directly translates to cost.
SIGNATURE EXTRACTION:
For documentation generation or API review tasks, sending only the
function signature + docstring instead of the full body saves 50–75%
of input tokens with no reduction in output quality for those tasks.
IMPORTANT: These techniques apply to INPUT tokens only. Output tokens
(generated code) are usually not affected. Since output is 3–5× more
expensive per token, the overall cost reduction is significant but bounded.
A 30% input saving = ~18% total savings when input is 60% of total cost.
✅ prompt_compression_demo.py completed.
━━━ Running: chunking_strategy_demo.py ━━━
===========================================================================
Chunking Strategy Demo
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §6.1 Strategy 3
Tokenizer: cl100k_base (GPT-4)
===========================================================================
Sample module size: 853 tokens (107 lines)
===========================================================================
Chunking Comparison — Python | Small Model (32K)
File: 853 tokens | Available per chunk: 26,000 tokens
===========================================================================
Strategy Chunks Avg tok/chunk Max tok/chunk Prompt overhead
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-based (naive) 3 284 330 6,000
Function-level 4 205 402 8,000
Token-budget-aware (recommended) 1 853 853 2,000
Recommendation for this file × context:
- Token-budget-aware is optimal: it maximizes chunk density while
respecting the context limit and breaking at clean boundaries.
- Line-based is risky: it may produce chunks that split mid-function,
causing the LLM to generate incomplete or inconsistent code.
- Function-level works well for smaller files; the number of LLM calls
scales linearly with the number of functions.
Overhead note: Each additional chunk requires repeating the system prompt
(2,000 tokens). For 4 function-level chunks, that is
8,000 tokens of overhead — a real cost multiplier.
===========================================================================
Chunking Comparison — Python | GPT-4o
File: 853 tokens | Available per chunk: 116,000 tokens
===========================================================================
Strategy Chunks Avg tok/chunk Max tok/chunk Prompt overhead
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-based (naive) 3 284 330 12,000
Function-level 4 205 402 16,000
Token-budget-aware (recommended) 1 853 853 4,000
Recommendation for this file × context:
- Token-budget-aware is optimal: it maximizes chunk density while
respecting the context limit and breaking at clean boundaries.
- Line-based is risky: it may produce chunks that split mid-function,
causing the LLM to generate incomplete or inconsistent code.
- Function-level works well for smaller files; the number of LLM calls
scales linearly with the number of functions.
Overhead note: Each additional chunk requires repeating the system prompt
(4,000 tokens). For 4 function-level chunks, that is
16,000 tokens of overhead — a real cost multiplier.
===========================================================================
Language-Specific Chunking Thresholds (GPT-4o, Code Review task)
===========================================================================
Language Tokens/LOC Max LOC in 32K Max LOC in 128K
--------------------------------------------------------------
Python 10.34 2,515 LOC 11,610 LOC
JavaScript 11.53 2,256 LOC 10,411 LOC
TypeScript 14.80 1,757 LOC 8,108 LOC
Go 13.83 1,880 LOC 8,676 LOC
Java 16.17 1,608 LOC 7,421 LOC
Rust 15.68 1,658 LOC 7,653 LOC
C 15.66 1,660 LOC 7,663 LOC
Key takeaway:
C code exhausts a 32K context window at ~1,800 LOC.
Python can accommodate ~2,700 LOC in the same window.
This 50% gap means C projects require more chunks, more API calls,
and more prompt-overhead tokens per project — compounding the base cost.
✅ chunking_strategy_demo.py completed.
━━━ Running: token_aware_sdlc_pipeline.py ━━━
========================================================================
Token-Aware SDLC Pipeline
Supports: TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §6
========================================================================
==================================================
PIPELINE RUN 1: Java (high token multiplier)
==================================================
[Pipeline] Starting code_generation for Java
[Pipeline] ⚡ Prototyping in Python first (reduces stuck-loop risk)
[Pipeline] Format strip applied (Java): 1037 → 1033 chars
[Pipeline] Comment strip applied: 1033 → 664 chars (35.7% saving)
[Pipeline] Code generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting code_review for Java
[Pipeline] Code review complete.
[Pipeline] Starting test_generation for Java (JUnit 5)
[Pipeline] Format strip applied (Java): 1037 → 1033 chars
[Pipeline] Comment strip applied: 1033 → 664 chars (35.7% saving)
[Pipeline] Test generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting documentation for Java
[Pipeline] Format strip applied (Java): 1037 → 1033 chars
[Pipeline] Documentation generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting debugging for Java
[Pipeline] Debugging complete.
============================================================
SESSION REPORT — Java × claude-sonnet-4
============================================================
Session summary — claude-sonnet-4
Total calls: 6
Input tokens: 1,889
Output tokens: 756
Cached tokens: 213
Total tokens: 2,645
Est. cost: $0.0164
Phase Input Output Cached
----------------------------------------------------
python_prototype 58 23 13
code_generation 158 63 40
code_review 452 181 40
test_generation 324 130 40
documentation 445 178 40
debugging 452 181 40
============================================================
Optimization strategies applied:
Format stripping: ✅ Applied
Comment stripping: ✅ Applied
Python prototyping: ✅ Available
Token multiplier: 1.47× vs. Python baseline
Max chunk size: 2,100 LOC
==================================================
PIPELINE RUN 2: Python (baseline — most efficient)
==================================================
[Pipeline] Starting code_generation for Python
[Pipeline] Comment strip applied: 633 → 626 chars (1.1% saving)
[Pipeline] Code generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting code_review for Python
[Pipeline] Code review complete.
[Pipeline] Starting test_generation for Python (pytest)
[Pipeline] Comment strip applied: 633 → 626 chars (1.1% saving)
[Pipeline] Test generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting documentation for Python
[Pipeline] Signature extraction for docs: 633 → 301 chars (52.4% saving)
[Pipeline] Documentation generation complete.
[Pipeline] Starting debugging for Python
[Pipeline] Debugging complete.
============================================================
SESSION REPORT — Python × claude-sonnet-4
============================================================
Session summary — claude-sonnet-4
Total calls: 5
Input tokens: 1,491
Output tokens: 597
Cached tokens: 206
Total tokens: 2,088
Est. cost: $0.0129
Phase Input Output Cached
----------------------------------------------------
code_generation 333 133 42
code_review 321 128 41
test_generation 314 126 42
documentation 204 82 41
debugging 319 128 40
============================================================
Optimization strategies applied:
Format stripping: ⬜ Skipped (Python/Ruby)
Comment stripping: ✅ Applied
Python prototyping: ⬜ Not needed
Token multiplier: 1.00× vs. Python baseline
Max chunk size: 2,700 LOC
📊 Java vs Python cost ratio (this session): 1.28×
Java: $0.0164 | Python: $0.0129
Note: This is a STUB simulation. Real ratios from benchmark research:
- Static token ratio: Java = 1.47× Python
- Agentic cost ratio: Java = 1.18–1.34× Python (Wu et al. 2026)
- Production cost ratio: Java = 1.32× Python (mame benchmark)
See TOKEN_CONSUMPTION_ACROSS_LANGUAGES.md §6 for all optimization strategies.
✅ token_aware_sdlc_pipeline.py completed.
================================================================
Pipeline complete at Tue Aug 25 12:20:28 CEST 2026
Passed: 16 / 16
================================================================
Conclusion
Programming language choice is not merely a syntactic preference or execution runtime decision — it acts as a foundational financial variable in LLM-assisted software development platforms. Dynamic, expressive languages like Ruby and Python minimize token footprint, maximize working context headroom, and minimize correction loops in AI agent interactions. Conversely, lower-level or verbosity-heavy languages like C, C++, Java, and TypeScript carry an inherent structural “token tax” that scales exponentially across every phase of the software lifecycle.
To build cost-effective and scalable AI platforms, engineering teams must actively manage their stack’s token economics. Platform engineers can maximize efficiency by building orchestrators, prompt wrappers, and AI tools in token-efficient languages (Python/Ruby) while establishing automated context preprocessing (format stripping, comment removal, and AST signature extraction) for enterprise repositories written in higher-overhead target languages.
Thanks for reading 💰💸💳
Links
- Code repository for this post: https://github.com/aairom/token-economy-code
- Tokenomics: Quantifying Where Tokens Are Used in Agentic Software Engineering: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14470
- Capturing value in a tokenized economy: Who controls the next revenue pools?: https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/capture-value-tokenized-economy
- IBM launches AI platform Bob to regulate SDLC costs: https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/ibm-launches-ai-platform-bob-to-regulate-sdlc-costs/
- What is software development lifecycle (SDLC) automation?: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/software-development-automation
