PEGTL VS abseil-cpp

Very cool, and I like the name!

I'd be interested in reading about how Matcheroni compares with PEGTL and Lexy.

https://github.com/taocpp/PEGTL

I found a library I wanted to test: Pegtl

I like PEGTL

Sure - libraries that are expected to be entirely self-contained. The one that comes to mind is PEGTL, a parser combinator library that is intended to be embedded inside a larger program. Making it import more dependencies would break this philosophy. Similarly, in the Rust world, there are a variety of "no-std" crates that should be able to be imported even if the standard library is not available on the target platform.

The program in the post was just an example meant to illustrate the problem. Originally, this (new) behavior of MSVC broke my code in the PEGTL, see [this commit](https://github.com/taocpp/PEGTL/commit/e3c8cb499dc3d1d76d23f2d5d79469dcb15550c5) that I needed to apply to fix it.

As a professional C++ programmer I feel a lot of the reasons C++ gets this response is because it's simply not "batteries included" like Go or Rust.

C++ is a very powerful, unopinionated language, that gives you a lot of freedom to attack your problem domain the way you best see fit.

If you're writing a networked application, don't use POSIX sockets, go and find a higher level library. If you're parsing complex text formats, don't iterate over buffers with char*'s, go pick up PEGTL[0]. If you're working on graphs, or need to properly index in-memory data, go pick up Boost[1][2]. If you need a GUI, go pick up Qt.

It's extremely common in C++, due to the lack of a universal package management solution, for people to try and "muddle through" and do shit themselves when it's far outside their core competency.

At one of my last employers, the core product was parsing JSON with std::regex, simply because they couldn't be bothered to integrate a JSON library.

[0] https://github.com/taocpp/PEGTL

[1] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_76_0/libs/graph/

[2] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_76_0/libs/multi_index/doc/i...

You are looking for Boost.Spirit (https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_76_0/libs/spirit/doc/x3/html/index.html) or PEGTL (https://github.com/taocpp/PEGTL)

I personally prefer to use parsing combinator libraries in C++, where the "grammar" is just part of normal C++ and directly integrate. Examples are Boost.Spirit, pegtl, or (my own) lexy.

While I'm not quite sure how this might transfer to your approach, with your Haskell-inspired style being quite different from our C++ templates, in the PEGTL our equivalent to your Char, which is called one, is variadic (true to the T in PEGTL a variadic template) and takes a list of possible matches.

Yeah, it's nice! And Abseil does it, IFF you use LLVM libc++.

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/string...

The standard adopted it as resize_and_overwrite. Which I think is a little clunky.

This may be confusing to those familiar with Google's libraries. The baseline is the Go BTree, which I personally never heard of until just now, not the C++ absl::btree_set. The benchmarks aren't directly comparable, but the C++ version also comes with good microbenchmark coverage.

https://github.com/google/btree

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/contai...

An implementation of call_once that accommodates callbacks that throw: https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/base/c...

I wouldn't say it's that cryptic. It's just a few bitwise rotations/shifts/xor operations.

You can see hashing optimizations as well https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sort..., https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/74eee2aff683cc7d...

I was one of the members who reviewed expertly what has been done both in sorting and hashing. Overall it's more about assembly, finding missed compiler optimizations and balancing between correctness and distribution (in hashing in particular).

It was not revolutionary in a sense it hasn't found completely new approaches but converged to something incomprehensible for humans but relatively good for performance which proves the point that optimal programs are very inhuman.

Note that for instructions in sorting, removing them does not always lead to better performance, for example, instructions can run in parallel and the effect can be less profound. Benchmarks can lie and compiler could do something differently when recompiling the sort3 function which was changed. There was some evidence that the effect can come from the other side.

For hashing it was even funnier, very small strings up to 64 bit already used 3 instructions like add some constant -> multiply 64x64 -> xor upper/lower. For bigger ones the question becomes more complicated, that's why 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation. Distribution on real workloads was good, it almost passed smhasher and we decided it was good enough to try out in prod. We did not rollback as you can see from abseil :)

But even given all that, it was fascinating to watch how this system was searching and was able to find particular programs can be further simplified. Kudos to everyone involved, it's a great incremental change that can bring more results in the future.

Check out https://abseil.io. It offers absl::optional, which is a backport of std::optional.