jumprope-rs VS librope

Thanks for all the work in bootstrapping this part of the ecosystem! I opened an issue[1] on the memory issue for jumprope. It seems to really come down to the large size of skiplist nodes relative to the text.

I did some testing with JumpRopeBuf, but ultimately did not include it because I was comparing things from an "interactive editor" perspective where edits are applied immediately instead of a collaborative/CRDT use case where edits are async. But it did perform very well as you said! I feel like JumpRopeBuf feels similar to a piece table, where edits are stored separately and then joined reading.

[1] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs/issues/5

Every piece of a large program should be tested like this. And if you can, test your whole program like this too. (Doable for most libraries, databases, compilers, etc. This is much harder for graphics engines or UI code.)

I've been doing this for years and I can't remember a single time I set something like this up and didn't find bugs. I'm constantly humbled by how effective fuzzy bois are.

This sounds complex, but code like this will usually be much smaller and easier to maintain than a thorough unit testing suite.

Here's an example from a rope (complex string) library I maintain. The library lets you insert or delete characters in a string at arbitrary locations. The randomizer loop is here[1]. I make Rope and a String, then in a loop make random changes and then call check() to make sure the contents match. And I check and all the expected internal invariants in the rope data structure hold:

[1] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs/blob/ae2a3f3c2bc7fc1f...

When I first ran this test, it found a handful of bugs in my code. I also ran this same code on a few rust rope libraries in cargo, and about half of them fail this test.

Jumprope author here. Thanks for the quick test! I just updated the benchmarks in jumprope/rope_benches to include Crop, and it looks to me like jumprope is about 2x faster than crop:

I’d go further and say that writing most software without fuzz testing is insane. Fuzz testing is one of those things they should teach in school. They’re a super useful technique - up there with TDD and it’s a tragedy they aren’t more wildly used.

Fuzzers are so good because they find so many bugs relative to programmer effort (lines of code). They’re some of the most efficient testing you can do. If I had to choose between a full test suite and a fuzzer, I’d choose the fuzzer.

I use fuzzers whenever I have a self contained “machine” in my code which should have well defined behaviour. For example, a b-tree. I write little custom fuzzers each time. The fuzzing code randomly mutates the data structure and keeps a list of the expected btree content. Then periodically I verify that the list and the btree agree on what should be contained inside the list. In the project I’m working on at the moment, I have about 6 different fuzzers sprinkled throughout my testing code. (Btree fuzzer, rope fuzzer, file serialisation fuzzer, a few crdt fuzzers, and so on).

Writing fuzzers is quite devastating for the ego. Usually the first time I point a fuzzer at my code, even when my code has a lot of tests, the fuzzer throws an assertion failure instantly. “Iteration 2 … the state doesn’t match what was expected”.

Getting a fuzzer running all night without finding any bugs is a balm for the soul.

The code looks like this, if anyone is curious. Here’s a fuzzer for a rope (fancy string) implementation: https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs/blob/master/tests/tes...

Yep. A few years ago I implemented a skip list based rope library in C[1], and after learning rust I eventually ported it over[2].

The rust implementation was much less code than the C version. It generated a bigger assembly but it ran 20% faster or so. (I don't know why it ran faster than the C version - this was before the noalias analysis was turned on in the compiler).

Its now about 3x faster than C, thanks to some use of clever layered data structures. I could implement those optimizations in C, but I find rust easier to work with.

C has advantages, but performance is a bad reason to choose C over rust. In my experience, the runtime bounds checks it adds are remarkably cheap from a performance perspective. And its more than offset by the extra optimizations the rust compiler can do thanks to the extra knowledge the compiler has about your program. If my experience is anything to go by, naively porting C programs to rust would result in faster code a lot of the time.

And I find it easier to optimize rust code compared to C code, thanks to generics and the (excellent) crates ecosystem. If I was optimizing for runtime speed, I'd pick rust over C every time.

[1] https://github.com/josephg/librope

[2] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs

Linked lists are also the basis for skip lists - which are awesome. One of the only data structures I know of which needs a random number generator to work correctly. I have a rope implementation that I tidied up over the last few days which uses a skip list. Its several times faster than the next fastest library I know of (ropey). They're both O(log n), but for some reason jumprope (with skip lists) still ended up several times faster than ropey's b-trees.

Yep. A few years ago I implemented a skip list based rope library in C[1], and after learning rust I eventually ported it over[2].

The rust implementation was much less code than the C version. It generated a bigger assembly but it ran 20% faster or so. (I don't know why it ran faster than the C version - this was before the noalias analysis was turned on in the compiler).

Its now about 3x faster than C, thanks to some use of clever layered data structures. I could implement those optimizations in C, but I find rust easier to work with.

C has advantages, but performance is a bad reason to choose C over rust. In my experience, the runtime bounds checks it adds are remarkably cheap from a performance perspective. And its more than offset by the extra optimizations the rust compiler can do thanks to the extra knowledge the compiler has about your program. If my experience is anything to go by, naively porting C programs to rust would result in faster code a lot of the time.

And I find it easier to optimize rust code compared to C code, thanks to generics and the (excellent) crates ecosystem. If I was optimizing for runtime speed, I'd pick rust over C every time.

[1] https://github.com/josephg/librope

[2] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs

> it’s not clear if this will be a positive for native dev advocacy

I've rewritten a few things in rust. Seems pretty positive to me, because you can mix some of the best optimizations and data structures you'd write in C, with much better developer ergonomics.

A few years ago I wrote a rope library in C. This is a library for making very fast, arbitrary insert & delete operations in a large string. My C code was about as fast as I could make it at the time. But recently, I took a stab at porting it to Rust to see if I could improve things. Long story short, the rust version is another ~3x faster than the C version.

https://crates.io/crates/jumprope

(Vs in C: https://github.com/josephg/librope )

The competition absolutely isn't fair. In rust, I managed to add another optimization that doesn't exist in the C code. I could add it in C, but it would have been really awkward to weave in. Possible, but awkward in an already very complex bit of C. In rust it was much easier because of the language's ergonomics. In C I'm using lots of complex memory management and I don't want to add complexity in case I add memory corruption bugs. In rust, well, the optimization was entirely safe code.

And as for other languages - I challenge anyone to even approach this level of performance in a non-native language. I'm processing ~30M edit operations per second.

But these sort of performance results probably won't scale for a broader group of programmers. I've seen rust code run slower than equivalent javascript code because the programmers, used to having a GC, just Box<>'ed everything. And all the heap allocations killed performance. If you naively port python line-by-line to rust, you can't expect to magically get 100x the performance.

Its like, if you give a top of the line Porsche to an expert driver, they can absolutely drive faster. But I'm not an expert driver, so I'll probably crash the darn thing. I'd take a simple toyota or something any day. I feel like rust is the porsche, and python is the toyota.

> I have no idea whether that matters or even easy to measure...

It is reasonably easy to measure, and the GP is about right. I've measured a crossover point of around a few hundred items too. (Though I'm sure it'll vary depending on use case and whatnot.)

I made a rope data structure a few years ago in C. Its a fancy string data structure which supports inserts and deletes of characters at arbitrary offsets. (Designed for text editors). The implementation uses a skip list (which performs similarly to a b-tree). At every node we store an array of characters. To insert or delete, we traverse the structure to find the node at the requested offset, then (usually) memmove a bunch of characters at that node.

Q: How large should that per-node array be? A small number would put more burden on the skip list structure and the allocator, and incur more cache misses. A large number will be linearly slower because of all the time spent in memmove.

Benchmarking shows the ideal number is in the ballpark of 100-200, depending on CPU and some specifics of the benchmark itself. Cache misses are extremely expensive. Storing only a single character at each node (like the SGI C++ rope structure does) makes it run several times slower. (!!)

Code: https://github.com/josephg/librope

This is the constant to change if you want to experiment yourself:

https://github.com/josephg/librope/blob/81e1938e45561b0856d4...

In my opinion, hash tables, btrees and the like in the standard library should probably swap to flat lists internally when the number of items in the collection is small. I'm surprised more libraries don't do that.