Those benchmarks do not compare like-for-like. Often the Haskell versions try to solve the problems elegantly with high-level functional code at the expense of performance, e.g. see Mandelbrot.
GHC Haskell is an advanced optimising compiler that will produce considerably faster functional code than both Erlang and Java. For maximum performance, it is perfectly possible to write imperative array-oriented code in Haskell, in which case performance should be comparable to Java.
My post was more for the benefit of other readers, who might have otherwise concluded that modern GHC is "slow". There are many ways to compare the 'execution time' of e.g. Java and Haskell. Idiomatic Haskell code may well be slower than (traditional) idiomatic Java code. But these days more and more functional code is written in Java/Scala/Clojure and the JVM does not optimise such code nearly as well as GHC.
I can certainly see merit in that idea. The problem is that it's often not clear what the idiomatic style for a particular language applied to a particular problem is. Many of the Haskell solutions also look quite old, predating for example the now standard Haskell "Vector" library.
It's a useful resource, but I think we should we wary of making very general remarks based on the results.
We should we wary of making very general remarks, period.
The benchmarks game is not restricted to "the idiomatic style" so it isn't a problem that "the idiomatic style" for a particular problem is often not clear.
> Many of the Haskell solutions also look quite old…
