librope VS c3c

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.

C3, "The C-like for people who like C" just reached v0.5, marking its feature-stable release: https://c3.handmade.network/blog/p/8824-say_hello_to_c3_0.5

Feature stability ensures that version 0.5 will undergo bug fixes and maintenance separately from the main branch, providing projects with a stable compiler version to work with.

Try it out in the browser https://learn-c3.org

Github: https://github.com/c3lang/c3c

If you appreciate C, then maybe this is a language you'll enjoy. Dive into the documentation at https://c3-lang.org to view examples and read more in depth about the language.

Tuples are being discussed, although I am unsure if it would be sufficiently useful. (Discussion here and here if you want to leave some thoughts)

I've been trying to build c3lang on my local machine. The problem is that it requires static files for both llvm and lld. Now, the static files for llvm have been provided (llvm-static), but not for lld, at least that's what I think. I thought that maybe I've made a mistake somewhere by not search the package thoroughly. I just wanted to know what package will install static files for lld.

So (preferably) have a little look at the language (https://c3-lang.org/) and maybe try it out (https://learn-c3.org/) and then file whatever issue you want: https://github.com/c3lang/c3c/issues/new

Like this: https://github.com/c3lang/c3c

> I wish we had C+: C + a few niceties (and not C ++ everything). There's a whole bunch of newer languages aiming at the space C is sitting in, but with a few additions C could be much more ergonomic without having to invent an entire new language.

I’ve made a pre-processor for C to add some things I miss, although it is currently limited to what can be done without type information and has to keep compatibility with existing C syntax: https://sentido-labs.com/en/library/cedro/202106171400/

There is another language call C3 that “is a C-like language striving to be an evolution of C, rather than a completely new language”: https://github.com/c3lang/c3c

If you have the time, I’d like to hear which things you miss in C. There might be something I did not imagine that could be added to Cedro.

Off the top of my head, cc99 and c3 are two C dialects that both can do this.