[erlang-questions] clueless performance question

Mats Cronqvist <>
Wed Jun 11 18:20:22 CEST 2008

Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Mats Cronqvist wrote:
>> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>>> ...I thought the "wide finder" work of
>>> last fall was pretty interesting. (Likewise for the
>>> WF2 getting started now.)
>>  i tuned out of that discussion, but i was under the impression that
>> erlang pretty much... sucked.
>>  so it was interesting to see Jeff Atwood's summary(*);
> I think it's more accurate to say that early, "idiomatic" Erlang 
> implementations sucked.  Once you give up on using line-oriented I/O 
> and write a few hundred lines of code using raw I/O, it gets fast.  
> For the record, though, the winning Perl implementation was a couple 
> dozen lines and, while clever, not obfuscated. 

  i was surprised that the erlang implementation was able to get within 
a factor of 10 for what's pretty much the canonical perl problem.
  kind of like implementing a phone switch with 10,000 concurrent tasks 
and get nine nines reliability in perl.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list