bstr VS yoga

Libraries for a lot of this stuff exist (albeit in many cases not very mature yet):

- https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-text does text layout (which Taffy explicitly considers out of scope)

- https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit does accessibility

- https://github.com/servo/rust-cssparser does value-agnostic CSS parsing (it will parse the general syntax but leaves value parsing up to the user, meaning you can easily add support for whatever properties you what). Libraries like https://github.com/parcel-bundler/lightningcss implement parsing for the standard css properties.

- There are crates like https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr and https://docs.rs/wtf8/latest/wtf8/ for working with non-unicode text

We are planning to add a C API to Taffy, but tbh I feel like C is not very good for this kind of modularised approach. You really want to be able to expose complex APIs with enforced type safety and this isn't possible with C.

As the author of bstr and also the regex implementation that bstr uses to implement word breaking, it is linear time.

NSFL: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/86947727666d7b21c97e...

OsStr uses WTF-8 on Windows, and just represents the raw underlying bytes on Unix.

Byte strings can be WTF-8. They can be anything. The problem is that there is no real way to (easily) get the underlying WTF-8 bytes of an OsStr on Windows. So there's no free conversion to and from byte strings.

I wrote more about this in the bstr docs (and don't miss the link to os_str_bytes): https://docs.rs/bstr/latest/bstr/#file-paths-and-os-strings

I'd be happy to answer more questions if you have them. :-) https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/discussions

Check out bstr, which does this exact thing for its BString and BStr types.

Currently slated for next Monday: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/issues/40

This is just an FYI. I don't mean to say much to your overall point, although, as someone else who has spent a lot of time doing Unicode-y things, I do tend to agree with you. I had a very similar discussion a bit ago.[1]

Putting that aside, at least with respect to grapheme segmentation, it might be a little simpler than you think. But maybe only a little. The unicode-segmentation crate also does word segmentation, which is quite a bit more complicated than grapheme segmentation. For example, you can write a regex to parse graphemes without too much fuss[2]. (Compare that with the word segmentation regex, much to my chagrin.[3]) Once you build the regex, actually using it is basically as simple as running the regex.[4]

Sadly, not all regex engines will be able to parse that regex due to its use of somewhat obscure Unicode properties. But the Rust regex crate can. :-)

And of course, this somewhat shifts code size to heap size. So there's that too. But bottom line is, if you have a nice regex engine available to you, you can whip up a grapheme segmenter pretty quickly. And some regex engines even have grapheme segmentation built in via \X.

[1]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/aho-corasick/issues/72

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

[3]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

[4]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

This is a great idea. I realize the find implementation is not ideal and have considered bringing in an optional dependency to improve performance. I remembered bstr using two-way search, so I was wondering if depending on the full crate for searching would be worthwhile, but I see that changed. Thanks for the tip!

Fun little nit-pick that does not detract from your overall point: you can actually count graphemes with a regex and that's exactly what bstr does. :-)

We still wanted to leverage a layout engine that could be performant and easy-to-use. After doing some performance testing with native UIKit, Autolayout, and a few other third-party options, we ended up bringing FlexLayout into the mix, which is a Swift implementation of Facebook’s Yoga layout engine. All RPL components utilize FlexLayout in order to lay out content fast and efficiently. While we’ve enjoyed using it, we’ve found a few touch points to be mindful of. There are some rough edges we’ve found, such as utilizing stack views with subviews that use FlexLayout, that often come at odds with both UIKit and FlexLayout’s layout engines.

We have our own test suite (orginally derived from the test suite of Meta's Yoga layout library [0]) which consists of text fixtures that are small HTML snippets [1] and a test harness [2] that turns those into runnable tests, utilising headless chrome both to parse the HTML and to generate the assertions based on the layout that Chrome renders (so we are effectively comparing our implementation against Chrome). We currently have 686 generated tests (covering both Flexbox and CSS Grid).

We would like to utilise the Web Platform Test suite [3], however these are not in a standard format and many of the tests require JavaScript so we are not currently able to do that.

[0]: https://github.com/facebook/yoga

[1]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/test_fixtures

[2]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/scripts/gentes...

[3]: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/cs...

The "engine" is built on top of amazing https://www.lwjgl.org/ and https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx/, and UI system is baked by https://github.com/memononen/nanovg and https://github.com/facebook/yoga

React Native uses the Yoga engine under the hood, which allows you to use CSS properties to layout your React Native UI in a way that translates really well. Layout in Yoga is limited to Flexbox and absolute/relative positioning, however; there is no CSS grid and no display attribute. This keeps things simpler and more performant, but if developers are accustomed to using other layout techniques on the web, they’ll need to adjust to this new limitation.

PR #246 is super interesting to check out: by fixing the caching strategy, we were able to eliminate an exponential time (with respect to tree depth) performance penalty, and get comparable speeds for flat and deeply nested layouts (something I'd never expected to be possible). Preliminary benchmarks shows us significantly faster than yoga, Meta's C++ library for the same thing, especially on deep trees. Not too shabby for a tiny team of volunteers!

You're going to build the CLI using Ink, a React component-based library for building interactive CLIs. It uses Yoga to build Flexbox layouts in the terminal, so most CSS-like props are available in Ink as well. Ink is simply a React renderer for the terminal, so all the React features are supported. No need to learn a new syntax specific to Ink.

Interesting.

I was thinking that this was going to be a crazy amount of layout engine work, but now I look a little closer it appears the layout work is farmed out to yoga [0] (not trying to take away anything from the effort here). So this project is almost a wrapper around running yoga as a renderer and using SVG as a form of backend target?

I say "appears" because the yoga landing page doesn't do a great job of explaining what it does.

[0] https://github.com/facebook/yoga