ctl VS ctl

I recall a few years back doing something like this implementing a binary heap just as a hobby project (https://github.com/Equationist/ctl/blob/master/pqueue.h). I was curious to see how unoptimized it was vis a vis the STL, and ran compiled equivalent test code for both my priority queue and the STL's C++ implementation, with just integers. I was kind of shocked to find that my implementation was like 30% faster when both were compiled at -O3 levels. Seeing this backport I guess there isn't anything fancy in the STL implementations, so it's less surprising that my naive implementation could be just as fast (or happen to be faster).

Well, I do like mine better, which is closer to the STL, and for all containers. https://github.com/rurban/ctl/

search for htable or hashtable in thousands of open source projects. only a minority has worse hashtables than this one (clisp, perl5 e.g.).

For better ones I would point to my linked list implementation: https://github.com/rurban/ctl/blob/master/ctl/unordered_set.... (because it has various security policies, nobody else has)

C Container Template Library, Rurban Variant (CTL) - The page for unordered_map reads "Implementation in work still".

There is also the rurban variant variant of CTL which is more complete.

The prototype of CC used this mechanism to provide a generic API for types instantiated via templates (so basically like other container libraries, but with an extendible-_Generic-based API laid over the top of the generated types). This approach has some significant advantages over the approach CC now uses, but I got a bit obsessed with eliminating the need to manually instantiate templates.

But the most common that I know of is this one: https://github.com/tylov/STC. There's also this one mentioned above https://rurban.github.io/ctl/

I'm also working on a proper one, but got sidetracked. https://github.com/rurban/ctl/blob/hmap/ctl/swisstable.h