trailfox

15 ms·

151.
by trailfox 14y ago
The Whatsapp 2 million connection result was on a 24 core box with a ton of RAM. The Clojure benchmark was pulled off on a 4-core desktop. Also, Whatsapp connections are mostly idle, only a small fraction of users would be sending a message
152.
by trailfox 14y ago
The benchmark doesn't "cripple" by de-parallelizing. Execution is already in parallel, it just uses regular collections as the concurrent ones weren't worth the performance overhead and in the end Akka ran 44% faster than Erlang. In the com
153.
by trailfox 14y ago
C# 1.0 was very close to being an exact copy of Java. To say that if C# had been released before Java it would have been more popular is nonsensical as it started life as copy-cat Java. Without Java there wouldn't be a C#. Later versions of
154.
by trailfox 14y ago
Many C# features look a lot like Scala features (2003/4)
155.
by trailfox 14y ago
As a daytime Scala developer who seldom uses Java anymore these changes are nice, but a far cry from what I get in Scala.
156.
by trailfox 14y ago
> I would expect the numbers should be better than Scala Why would you expect that? The JVM has years worth of advanced optimizations.
157.
by trailfox 14y ago
> I assume you mean the comment that links here You assume incorrectly. I'm referring to the version where Scala was 44% faster than Akka: https://plus.google.com/112820434312193778084/posts/HdKFx4VQ... In any event the application
158.
by trailfox 14y ago
Wild speculation hardly == "wow"
159.
by trailfox 14y ago
Recent benchmarks and related responses resulted in Akka out-performing Erlang (read the full post): https://plus.google.com/112820434312193778084/posts/HdKFx4VQ... Shared memory when running on the same machine is actually more efficient
160.
by trailfox 14y ago
It should run comfortably on any modern server, might be tricky if you have severe memory constraints though.
161.
by trailfox 14y ago
Definitely looking forward to seeing if Go has made any progress in catching up to Java and Scala in algorithm execution times.
162.
by trailfox 14y ago
Akka is also a viable Erlang alternative.
163.
by trailfox 14y ago
Interesting. We find Scala to be more readable than Java. I guess it depends on the type/style of Scala you write. You definitely need be mindful of readability when writing Scala code (code reviews etc. help to ensure readable code). We us
164.
by trailfox 14y ago
> Why not mono? Surely you jest?
165.
by trailfox 14y ago
Except that .NET is not a language... The language Anders invented is called C# and v1.0 looked extremely similar to Java (later versions diverged significantly from Java).
166.
by trailfox 14y ago
> As far as I know, Scala newbies are coming back to Java. With Play! and Scooter, Java is more Ruby than Scala. From what I've seen it's been a one-way street from Java -> Scala. I've yet to meet anyone who wants to go back to Ja
167.
by trailfox 14y ago
> Ruby isn't cool any more. Yeah, you heard me. It's not cool to write Ruby code any more. All the cool people moved on to slinging Scala and Node.js years ago.
168.
by trailfox 14y ago
If X is the price of the rock then for sufficiently large X it can be guaranteed that he won't have any money left over for what's coming "after it" anyway. In some cases a large value of X simply proves that he doesn't apply common sense w
169.
by trailfox 14y ago
Discount code of: joc2elaunch50 Works for: Scala in Depth Scala in Action Akka in Action Clojure in Action, Second Edition Functional Programming in Scala Play for Scala Play for Java Lift in Action DSLs in Actio
170.
by trailfox 14y ago
If you're subscribed to manning daily deal email there's a 50% discount code for this book (and some scala books) that they seem to be sending today.
171.
by trailfox 14y ago
We also checked out both Go and Scala and picked Scala due to better IDE support (IntelliJ) and existing Java lib ecosystem. It also is typically faster than Go (but does use much more memory): http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/
172.
by trailfox 14y ago
That's some pretty wild speculation. As for "boiling down to calling setSecurityManager(null)" you are forgetting to point out how it was achieved via obscure calls to an instrumentation and management api: https://community.rapid7.com/com
173.
by trailfox 14y ago
We're using it because it's Scala-centric as we use that a lot, pretty much migrating from Java to Scala for new systems.
174.
by trailfox 14y ago
Using Guice with Play! Framework 2.1 for easy Dependency Injection: http://eng.42go.com/play-framework-dependency-injection-guic...
175.
by trailfox 14y ago
I don't think your original post is very clear at all. I get the same number as the post you are criticizing: 1000000/179 / 60 / 60 = 1.55 hours. Are there other messages being processed too? Which direction are the messages going? How big
176.
by trailfox 14y ago
> unfairly for the misconception that it [Ruby] is a slow language Ruby is a slow language, certainly considerably slower than c/c++/c#/scala/java/etc. The question is whether the performance gap is big enough in your particular use cas
177.
by trailfox 14y ago
Exactly. Establishing 1 million connections is pretty easy in any language that supports async io, even scripting languages. The article is super-vague about the direction of the traffic, the nature and size of the messages and how much of