range-v3 VS abseil-cpp

std::ranges is in c++20, but you can pull in the library it was based on if you use 17 (https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3)

What you are describing seems to be std::ranges. If you’re interested in understanding how to implement it, I recommend checking out the original reference implementation, rangev3. Trying to implement your own ranges framework is really good practice for learning how to do efficient, advanced generic programming in C++. I highly recommend it as a hobby learning project. But it’s also really, really hard to do correctly, so please just use the stdlib and/or rangev3 in any real project.

In C++23, there will be std::views::cartesian_product. It is already available in the range-v3 library, the one that the standard is based on.

/** * @brief Forwards value equivalent to the std::forward. * * Using cast instead of std::forward to avoid template instantiation. Used by * Eric Niebler in range library. * * @see https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3 */

It uses a custom zip_iterator (which isn't very good, and you should really use the one from boost or from range-v3).

It contains very little functionality compared to the Eric Niebler’s reference implementation for my liking. Especially views. This will undoubtedly change in the future. But the point is moot, because they are not really supported the is no other option for now other than https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3.

range-v3 is a great library allowing you to bridge the gap: https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3

[range-v3](https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3) which std::ranges was based on has the `to>()` which as far as I know is expected to get into c++23 :)

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.