[erlang-questions] clueless performance question
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