D vs Go in real life, part 2. Also, Erlang.

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/12/13 13:49, Atila Neves wrote:
> So, D was faster than the other contenders by far in throughput, 2nd place
> losing to the C implementation on latency. I'm still not sure why that is.
> Profiling in this case is tricky. I'm pretty sure the profiler is still ticking
> away when a fiber yields - the top function is the one that reads from the
> network, which I can't do much about.

What about the relative elegance/maintainability/ease of comprehension of the 
different solutions?  Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I can well 
understand if a preference for one language over another was decided on the 
basis of its performance being good _enough_ and the code being really easy to 
work with, rather than simply the best performer.