librope VS C++ Format

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.

Continuation passing monads form the basis of a perfectly valid and usable software architecture and programming pattern.

In the case of ostream and operator<<, this pattern reduces the number of intermediate objects that would otherwise be constructed.

If you object to iostream on religious or stylistic grounds, there's always fmt which is more like Go or Python string interpolation.[0]

0. https://fmt.dev

GitHub repo: fmtlib/fmt

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.5) project(knn_cpp CXX) # Set up C++ version and properties include(CheckIncludeFileCXX) check_include_file_cxx(any HAS_ANY) check_include_file_cxx(string_view HAS_STRING_VIEW) check_include_file_cxx(coroutine HAS_COROUTINE) set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 20) set(CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE Debug) set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD_REQUIRED ON) set(CMAKE_CXX_EXTENSIONS OFF) # Copy data file to build directory file(COPY ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/iris.data DESTINATION ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}) # Download library usinng FetchContent include(FetchContent) FetchContent_Declare(matplotplusplus GIT_REPOSITORY https://github.com/alandefreitas/matplotplusplus GIT_TAG origin/master) FetchContent_GetProperties(matplotplusplus) if(NOT matplotplusplus_POPULATED) FetchContent_Populate(matplotplusplus) add_subdirectory(${matplotplusplus_SOURCE_DIR} ${matplotplusplus_BINARY_DIR} EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL) endif() FetchContent_Declare( fmt GIT_REPOSITORY https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt.git GIT_TAG 7.1.3 # Adjust the version as needed ) FetchContent_MakeAvailable(fmt) # Add executable and link project libraries and folders add_executable(${PROJECT_NAME} main.cc) target_link_libraries(${PROJECT_NAME} PUBLIC matplot fmt::fmt) aux_source_directory(lib LIB_SRC) target_include_directories(${PROJECT_NAME} PRIVATE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}) target_sources(${PROJECT_NAME} PRIVATE ${LIB_SRC}) add_subdirectory(tests)

Good catch, thanks! Fixed now. This explains why the difference was kinda low compared to another benchmark: https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt?tab=readme-ov-file#compile-tim....

> This is from C++23, right?

std::println is, yes.

> I wonder how available this is within compilers

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support says clang, gcc, and msvc all support it, though I don't know how recent those versions are off the top of my head.

In my understanding, with this specific feature, if you want a polyfill for older compilers, or to use some more cutting-edge features that haven't been standardized yet, https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt is available to you.

{fmt} has internal buffering but it's not yet exposed to users. There is a feature request for it: https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt/issues/2354. FILE buffering is not too bad but it can be easily optimized: https://www.zverovich.net/2020/08/04/optimal-file-buffer-siz....

Automatic use of operator<< when that exists was present in fmt until version 9.0.0. In version 9 you could use FMT_DEPRECATED_OSTREAM to opt in the old behaviour, but this too was removed in version 10.0.0. Now there is no way to automatically use operator<<.

You can install it https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt

Additionally, if you like low level stuff, check out libfmt (https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt) - not a big project, not difficult to understand. Or something like simdjson (https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson).