obscure erlang-related publication
Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB)
Tue Mar 28 10:57:50 CEST 2006
Matthias Lang wrote:
> Wading through it all, you get to this on page 8:
> | These [the results] are the results of the judgment of one
> | or several persons for each language. In particular there
> | were 2 persons to evaluate Erlang, 3 for C++, 2 for Haskell,
> | 4 for VHDL, 2 for SDL and 2 for ProGram.
> I.e. they asked between 4 and 15 people what they thought
> about various aspects of one or more language and then put
> the results in impressive-looking tables, assigned fancy
> abbreviations and the odd greek letter before fudging around.
> They conclude that you can't conclude anything from the exercise.
Actually, that's not what they write:
"We have not eliminated subjectivity and we
cannot suggest a final conclusion but we have analysed
different strengths and weaknesses of the languages
and we have established causal relations between
assumptions and evaluation results due to a systematic
evaluation method. [...]
However, we have shown a way to make an evaluation
transparent and subject to detailed analysis and
discussion by making all the assumptions and
priorities as explicit as possible."
That is, they propose a method of comparing languages
that is at least somewhat more structured and transparent
than the usual hand-waving approach.
For one thing, this method allows you to wade a bit
deeper, look into their tables and evaluation criteria
and highlight the parts where you disagree, or you
think that they could manage to be less subjective. (:
More information about the erlang-questions