> Erlang claiming n-times faster on n-cores is snake oil. First of all, not all problems have n-times parallelism in them!
I keep reading this claim in Erlang articles, and I wonder why it continues to be made. Its obviously false for the theoretical reason of the limited amount of parallelism in a problem you just stated. It is empirically false on every benchmark I've seen on a real-world architecture (i.e. actual multicore, with actual memory and IO, as opposed to virtual processes). What's strange is that the OP seems to be completely aware of this, but still leads the article with the claim in bold letters before qualifying it later on.
To my mind, Erlang is pretty cool as it is, even before a discussion of multicore performance. But I guess if you "have been waiting 20 years for this to happen, and now it’s payback time" (payback for what?) you are OK with a bit of hyperbole.
I keep reading this claim in Erlang articles, and I wonder why it continues to be made. Its obviously false for the theoretical reason of the limited amount of parallelism in a problem you just stated. It is empirically false on every benchmark I've seen on a real-world architecture (i.e. actual multicore, with actual memory and IO, as opposed to virtual processes). What's strange is that the OP seems to be completely aware of this, but still leads the article with the claim in bold letters before qualifying it later on.
To my mind, Erlang is pretty cool as it is, even before a discussion of multicore performance. But I guess if you "have been waiting 20 years for this to happen, and now it’s payback time" (payback for what?) you are OK with a bit of hyperbole.