abseil-cpp VS outcome

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.

https://github.com/ned14/outcome/tree/develop/abi-compliance uses both in a CI pass to ensure Outcome never changes anything which breaks either API or ABI with earlier versions.

outcome and/or expected

A "Sample Usage" appears on the front page of the docs: https://ned14.github.io/outcome/

I recently came across boost outcome as I was searching for a better error handling method. It took me a minute to get a hang of it but now I love it. After creating my own policy and a few aliases for easier use.

std::optional and std::variant can be a bit awkward to use in this scenario, though. Consider a dedicated type like boost::outcome (standalone versions) or one of the implementations of the proposed std::expected.

Minimum possible compile time impact is a key goal of https://github.com/ned14/outcome. We ship a single header edition which only includes the low impact standard headers as listed at https://github.com/ned14/stl-header-heft. We also don't use union storage for non-TC non-MB types in order to avoid complex metaprogramming execution by the compiler per instantiation.

It's really weird that I wrote the above, and then this bug was reported to Outcome: https://github.com/ned14/outcome/issues/244. Here is my exact complaint about lack of lifetime tracking in C++.