[erlang-questions] benchmarks game harsh criticism
Mon Nov 26 18:25:22 CET 2007
Joe Armstrong wrote:
> I've been following various discussions about benchmarks, and must say
> that I am not impressed.
> The general arguments seems to go like this:
> language A is good at X
> language B is good at Y
> language B is bad at X
> Therefore hack language B so that it is good at X
> This argument has appeared many times with different values of A B
> X and Y - usually by a proponent of A who because A solves X better than
> B assumes that A is in some sense better than B.
> The problem is that this argument is just plain daft.
No it's not, in general. It has to be considered on a case-by-case basis,
- *how* bad at X language B actually is;
- how difficult it is to hack language B to be good at X;
- whether anyone cares enough to do the required work;
- whether changing language B to do X would introduce too much
complexity or other disadvantages that would affect its use in
As for the 'shootout', most of the criticisms of it in this thread have
been valid; it's not a very good basis for comparison of language
More information about the erlang-questions