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

[Atila Neves]

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 15:02:44 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> 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.

I can't read Erlang (yet) so I don't know about that one. The C 
code is... well C code so not great. I have a profound dislike 
for Go but I'd say the Go and D implementations are just as 
readable. Then again, I wrote the D code so if I didn't think 
that was readable... :P

Atila