crubit VS abseil-cpp

See also:

Thomas Neumann's current proposal for memory safe C++ using dependency tracking:

- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p27...

Google's proposal for memory safety using Rust-like lifetime analysis:

- https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-lifetime-annotations-for-c/...

- https://github.com/google/crubit/tree/main/lifetime_analysis

For the people who are curious: crubit is an attempt to develop the way to seamlessly integrate C++ and Rust.

Please see the experimentation and proposals at https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/docs/lifetime_annotations_cpp.md and https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/docs/lifetimes_static_analysis.md

autocxx is good, though crubit is aiming for direct bidirectional interop

The areas you mentioned (CLI, web services, low level systems programming) are not mutually exclusive. Doing a good job on one doesn't mean something else is affected.

The folks who worked on the most popular command line argument parser (https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/#example) made a positive contribution that didn't detract from any other use case.

Similarly, the folks working on improving Rust for web services will also make it better for systems programming. In a blog post published today (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2022/07/27/keyword-ge...), they discuss keyword generics, a feature that will be equally helpful for `async` code and `const` functions evaluated at compile time.

There is already some interoperability with C++ (http://cxx.rs) and ongoing research into automating this interoperability (https://github.com/google/autocxx, https://github.com/google/crubit). Feels like there's enough effort

This language was started by folks at Google. (Although it's interesting that they're publishing it under a separate github org, which suggests ambitions beyond Google's needs.) Google has a huge, performance-sensitive C++ codebase. At Google, major product teams' backends are typically written in C++, as well as common infrastructure like D (disk server), Colossus (distributed filesystem), Spanner (distributed SQL database), and Borg (cluster management). More than a few people would love for it all to be be written in Rust instead, but migration would be challenging, to say the least. I'm told people are looking into it—see Crubit for example. But AFAIK, no one's decided yet whether Google will stay with C++ for all these things, migrate some to Rust, migrate some to Carbon, and/or do something else entirely.

It's currently unclear if Rust can interop with C++ with high fidelity. For example https://docs.rs/moveit/latest/moveit/ and https://github.com/google/crubit/blob/main/rs_bindings_from_... provide functionality to use non-trivially relocatable C++ types from Rust.

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.