| It reads like an astroturf advertisement for a product, but Erlang is open source and free. It's a worthless article anyway for the simple reason that there are no graphs, numbers, or reproducible experiments. The code snippets aren't the whole programs and the test harness setup isn't spelled out. The programs themselves look different in what they're doing, so they're not even equivalent! It's hard to tell because, for example, in some snippets the outermost loop is shown, but for C++ only the per-request "workload", but not all of it. Even just the how of the testing can make a huge difference in my experience, especially when running synthetic workloads against garbage-collected languages. Most of them will never crash under normal workloads, but if you go out of your way to generate stupid amounts of memory allocations, practically none will be able to keep up. The whole article is just nonsense, end-to-end, starting from the first content paragraph: "Our test environment consisted of a cluster of 16 high-performance servers..." Why a "cluster"? None of the workloads appear to be distributed or clustered applications! They're not testing Akka or Microsoft Orleans here, so why bother having more than one box? What operating system was used? What were the client systems? How many? Were some of the languages "doing better" simply because they were slower at handling the test loads and hence failing slower? Were the test clients correctly sending requests as fast as possible, or waiting sequentially for previous requests to complete before sending the next request? Etc... |
It seems like an ideological shitpost.