Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jens@couchbase.com designates
 206.225.164.31 as permitted sender)
From: Jens Alfke <jens@couchbase.com>
To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:50:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Erlang vs JavaScript
Thread-Topic: Erlang vs JavaScript
Thread-Index: Ac6ZJ4nAlL/o/8j6RHmdzDTz5ydlPA==
Message-ID: <6767FF32-687B-4000-8F65-D7E976BC90AB@couchbase.com>
References: 
 <CAPNuaCjQ3wgAd1BMyNUtip0rztK6n3Ex3rnq-hc=NXwL4Wt+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHdjip+inEpiA7cQsOSNri+UyTXTD-pYCnu1pY+MT9LG9R2rnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHdjip+inEpiA7cQsOSNri+UyTXTD-pYCnu1pY+MT9LG9R2rnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Erlang server bypassed stdio interface communication and addtional
> JSON decode/encode roundtrip, so it is faster than JS at some point.

Yeah =97 the ironic thing is that state-of-the-art JS runtimes are probably=
 faster than Erlang* these days, but JS views are still going to be slower =
because (a) they run in a separate process, and (b) the docs have to be tra=
nslated from Erlang terms into JS objects. My experience from working inter=
-language bridges is that parameter marshaling is generally a performance k=
iller.

FWIW, Couchbase Server 2.0 uses V8 instead of SpiderMonkey and runs it in-p=
rocess; both those changes really help performance.

=97Jens

* Not intending to start a language-performance flame war! But Erlang=92s i=
nterpreter is quite primitive by today=92s standards: it doesn=92t even hav=
e a JIT.=