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.
>  
>
true

><rant>
>
>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
>inclusive?
>
></rant>
>  
>
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
(implementations).

>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
>processors.
>  
>
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.

>Pete.
>  
>
Best regards,
Nic Linker.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list