Thanks for the free access links. I did read through a bit.

The title is misleading because exactly one implementation was chosen for each of the tested languages. They conclude “do not us e Python” because the Python websockets library performs pretty poorly.

Each language is scored based on the library chosen. I have to believe there are more options for some of these languages.

As someone who is implementing an Elixir LiveView app right now, I was particularly curious to see how Elixir performed given LiveViews reliance on websockets, but as Elixir didn’t make the cut.

Was also surprised they omitted Elixir/Erlang from the list of languages. Crazy considering how many messaging apps use OTP on the backend.

> The title is misleading because exactly one implementation was chosen for each of the tested languages. They conclude “do not use Python” because the Python websockets library performs pretty poorly.

On the contrary, they tried autobahn and aiohttp as well:

For the Python websocket, a generic module is used which is simply named "websockets". ... This is most likely a module that offers the simplest of websocket functionality. Now, it was mentioned that this only partly explains the poor performance. While writing this report, it seemed unjust not to give Python a fighting chance. So, the websocket server has been rebuilt with the more trusted Autobahn library and the benchmark test has been rerun. This new server does lead to better results ... still unable to finish the benchmark test.... [T]he Python server is rebuilt one more time, this time with a library by the name of "aiohttp." At last, all 100 rounds of the benchmark are able to be completed, though not very well. Aiohttp still takes longer than Go, and becomes substantially unreliable after round 50, dropping anywhere from 30-50% of the messages. It can only be concluded that the reason for this dreadful performance is Python itself.