Computer Language Shootout - concurrency
Tue Dec 6 12:59:21 CET 2005
I did say it was a rant, therefore I claim diminished responsibility
(more than usual, that is*) for my unenlightened drivel, sorry.
The benchmark in the shootout was _deliberately_ stunted to be more
inclusive, which is the reason I objected. If other languages failed to
scale well, why not expose the fact? I wasn't really thinking beyond
I agree, if the tests probe much deeper they will reveal some disgusting
facts about *all* languages, not just erlang, mind you. Where does one
draw the line?!
P.s. And yes, making technology choices based on these benchmarks is
flawed. I did say "lies, damned lies and statistics" earlier, so please
don't get me wrong.
However, technological choices are not always made by those who
ultimately use it, and management do tend to use benchmarks like these
to give themselves some 'guidance'. It's all a confidence trick; if you
don't work the system, the system will work against you.
* I am, after all, the one who sees smiling clocktowers in Stockholm at
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 11:20 +0100, Matthias Lang wrote:
> Peter-Henry Mander writes:
> > 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.
> Is this a finger-burning recipe? Or, can I make Erlang look bad?
More information about the erlang-questions