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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/4/13 7:41 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
> 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

How do they compare in lines of code?

Andrei