PEGTL VS Hopscotch map

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.

Unordered hash map shootout CMAP = https://github.com/tylov/STC KMAP = https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib PMAP = https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap FMAP = https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map RMAP = https://github.com/martinus/robin-hood-hashing HMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/hopscotch-map TMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/robin-map UMAP = std::unordered_map Usage: shootout [n-million=40 key-bits=25] Random keys are in range [0, 2^25). Seed = 1656617916: T1: Insert/update random keys: KMAP: time: 1.949, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 CMAP: time: 1.649, size: 15064129, buckets: 22145833, sum: 165525449561381 PMAP: time: 2.434, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 FMAP: time: 2.112, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 RMAP: time: 1.708, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 HMAP: time: 2.054, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 TMAP: time: 1.645, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 UMAP: time: 6.313, size: 15064129, buckets: 31160981, sum: 165525449561381 T2: Insert sequential keys, then remove them in same order: KMAP: time: 1.173, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 CMAP: time: 1.651, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 20000000 PMAP: time: 3.840, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 FMAP: time: 1.722, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 RMAP: time: 2.359, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 HMAP: time: 0.849, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 TMAP: time: 0.660, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 UMAP: time: 2.138, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 20000000 T3: Remove random keys: KMAP: time: 1.973, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 CMAP: time: 2.020, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 23367671 PMAP: time: 2.940, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 FMAP: time: 1.147, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 RMAP: time: 1.941, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 HMAP: time: 1.135, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 TMAP: time: 1.064, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 UMAP: time: 5.632, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 23367671 T4: Iterate random keys: KMAP: time: 0.748, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 CMAP: time: 0.627, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 PMAP: time: 0.680, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 FMAP: time: 0.735, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 RMAP: time: 0.464, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 HMAP: time: 0.719, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 TMAP: time: 0.662, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 UMAP: time: 6.168, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 T5: Lookup random keys: KMAP: time: 0.943, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 CMAP: time: 0.863, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 PMAP: time: 1.635, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 FMAP: time: 0.969, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 RMAP: time: 1.705, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 HMAP: time: 0.712, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 TMAP: time: 0.584, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 UMAP: time: 1.974, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438

the map member used for the lookups is a tsl::hopscotch_map (https://github.com/Tessil/hopscotch-map), which is a proper hash map. so it seems to be the latter, that the API is wrong, but from what I can tell it is only a wrongly named class. i don't see where the API makes guarantees about iteration order, which is where the implementation difference would be noticeable (beyond performance for lookup).

using an open-addressing hash table, such as abseil flat_hash_map or tessil/hopscotch-map