Computer Language Shootout - concurrency

Nic Linker <>
Tue Dec 6 12:10:51 CET 2005

Peter-Henry Mander wrote:

>I wonder if anyone else has tweaked the weighting of the results, like I did? There are benchmarks where erlang code is missing or broken which counts heavily against erlang. If you remove these from the ranking, the results are dramatically better for erlang.

>Why is there not another concurrency test with 5000 threads and more
>that demonstrate the absolute dominance of erlang? How can the
>benchmarks be useful unless they highlight those languages with unique
>strengths such as concurrency in erlang? Are there other benchmarks that
>have been 'politically-corrected' or 'dumbed-down' to be overly
Of course, massive concurrency support is the "kill'em all" feature of
Erlang. But if one creates a set of special "concurrency oriented"
benchmarks, it will be not impartial with respect to other languages

>I'm trying to find time to rectify what erlang code I can, but it's a
>very low priority. But until _all_ the benchmarks are corrected and
>peer-reviewed the ranking is utterly pointless. If anyone cares (and
>obviously some of us do) we should extract our proverbial digit and
>'fix' the results by submitting better code, and persuade the benchmark
>designers to add better and wider-ranging concurrency tests, since
>concurrency is becomming a hot topic these days with multicore and cell
Well, the applicability of a platform (or programming language) should
be decided by a set of application-specific benchmarks. So this accent
on concurrency might be not right. For example, Opera browser (rather
complex GUI application) has only 20 threads.

Best regards,
Nic Linker.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list