reference-crdts VS interface-types

> The goog version seems to work well but I have had nothing but frustration with ms word. Bad merges and weird states are typical, particularly from the fat client.

Argh not getting this stuff right is really frustrating. I've been working on collaborative editing for over a decade now, and I still can't implement any of these algorithms correctly without the help of a fuzz testing. But fuzz testing done right finds all of these problems! There's no excuse!

Fuzzers work so well here because all of these algorithms have a clear correctness criteria: After syncing, state should always converge to the same result. So its pretty easy to write code which does this in a loop:

1. Generates some random changes on some fake "peers"

2. Picks 2 peers at random and sync their changes, using your new fancy synchronization algorithm

3. Assert that the state has converged between the peers

I've been working on this stuff for over a decade. I've implemented dozens of these algorithms. And every single time I write a fuzzy boi to check my work I find convergence bugs. Playing whack-a-mole with a fuzzer is a rite of passage for implementing systems like this.

When your fuzzer runs all night, you should never have lingering convergence bugs like you're describing with Word.

As an example, here's a simple fuzzer for a reference list CRDT implementation: https://github.com/josephg/reference-crdts/blob/9f4f9c3a97b4...

The code is so small it almost fits on my laptop screen.

> In this case, the bottleneck at 9 million LoC is not CPU cycles but memory usage. That's where I am considering pushing down into WebAssembly

How often does this come up in practice? I can't think of many files I've opened which were 9 million lines long. And you say "LoC" (lines of code). Are you doing syntax highlighting on 9 million lines of source code in javascript? Thats impressive!

> I guess my point is why do you need balanced trees? Is this a CRDT specific thing? Can you implement CRDT with just an array of lines / gap buffer?

Of course! Its just going to be slower. I made a simple reference implementation of Yjs, Automerge and Sync9's list types in javascript here[1]. This code is not optimized, and it takes 30 seconds to process an editing trace that diamond types (in native rust) takes 0.01 seconds to process. We could speed that up - yjs does the same thing in 1 second. But I don't think javascript will ever run as fast as optimized rust code.

The b-tree in diamond types is used for merging. If you're merging 2 branches, we need to map insert locations from the incoming branch into positions in the target (merged) branch. As items are inserted, the mapping changes dynamically. The benchmark I've been using for this is how long it takes to replay (and re-merge) all the changes in the most edited file in the nodejs git repository. That file has just shy of 1M single character insert / delete operations. If you're curious, the causal graph of changes looks like this[2].

Currently it takes 250ms to re-merge the entire causal graph. This is much slower than I'd like, but we can cache the merged positions in about 4kb on disk or something so we only need to do it once. I also want to replace the b-tree with a skip list. I think that'll make the code faster and smaller.

A gap buffer in javascript might work ok... if you're keen, I'd love to see that benchmark. The code to port is here: [3]

> Undo support -> In which case, you only have to stack / remember the set of commands and not have to store the state on every change. I'm not sure if this overlaps with the data structure choice, other than implementation details.

Yeah, I basically never store a snapshot of the state. Not on every change. Not really at all. Everything involves sending around patches. But you can't just roll back the changes when you undo.

Eg: I type "aaa" at position 0 (the start of the document). You type "bbb" at the start of the document. The document is now "bbbaaa". I hit undo. What should happen? Surely, we delete the "aaa" - now at position 3.

Translating from position 0 to position 3 is essentially the same algorithm we need to run in order to merge.

> I was just looking into TypedArrays.

I tried optimizing a physics library a few years ago by putting everything in typedarrays and it was weirdly slower than using raw javascript arrays. I have no idea why - but maybe thats fixed now.

TypedArrays are useful, but they're no panacea. You could probably write a custom b-tree on top of a typedarray in javascript if you really want to - assuming your data also fits into typedarrays. But at that point you may as well just use wasm. It'll be way faster and more ergonomic.

[1] https://github.com/josephg/reference-crdts

[2] https://home.seph.codes/public/node_graph.svg

[3] https://github.com/josephg/diamond-types/tree/master/src/lis...

Some things that might greatly increase wasm usage and overall tooling:

1) Tools that run docker containers and serverless function services (like AWS lambda) to support providing a .wasm files instead

2) Garbage collection in the runtime to make GC languages easier to port to wasm

3) Dynamically typed languages (NodeJS, Python, Ruby) being able to compile to webassembly directly instead of porting the runtime to webassembly and then running the code through the runtime. This is a big ask though, basically needs to redesign the runtime completely

4) wasm-DOM bindings will enable other languages to do HTML rendering which will require new web frameworks for every language that wants to take over the space from JS. This will lead to (even more) fragmentation of the web ecosystem

5) A new wasm-first SDK (unrelated to the DOM) for building cross platform applications. I can see this taking off only if it is built-into the browsers and backed by some standards committee, so not very likely I think

6) Something like the Interface Types proposal ( https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/main/pro... ) becomes a thing allowing wasm programs to be consisted of modules written in several different languages and being able to call said modules with low or 0 runtime performance hit (and of course, no compilation to multiple CPU archs). So much of programming ecosystems are locked to specific languages (like data science with python) when there is little technical reason for it be like that.

AFAIK GC is irrelevant for "direct DOM access", you would rather want to hop into the following rabbit hole:

- reference types: https://github.com/WebAssembly/reference-types/blob/master/p...

- interface types (inactive): https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/main/pro...

- component model: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model

If this looks like a mess, that's because it is. Compared to that, the current solution to go through a Javascript shim doesn't look too bad IMHO.

I'm not really optimistic that particular aspect will get much improvement. Many people expected interface types to come save the day, but after a looong stagnation that proposal has been archived (for now) in favour of component types, which has much less potential for performance gains.

Really good questions. Unfortunately, most of the issues I found back then were fundamental ones. I've seen that Wasm has deprecated "Interface Types" and is now working on the "Component Model". But even then, as far as I understand that would only avoid the serialization and deserialization steps, and you would still need to copy complex types. It will be more performant, but I don't think it would be enough for Tremor either.

wasm doesn't know anything about the outside world on purpose. This allows it to be used in other domains. For direct access to the DOM et al, interface types are being developed. It's a non-trivial problem to interoperate with a dynamically typed GC'd language from any statically typed no-GC language that can compile to wasm.

You may want to look into WASM interface types, which is defining what amounts to am IDL for WASM and different languages have common calling conventions: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/08/webassembly-interface-type...

I don’t know if there’s a better intro article. I believe this is the current iteration of the proposal: https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/main/pro...

Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, this is the RFC

I see no reason why not. See the interface types proposal for a proposed solution.

Wanted to get thoughts from the Rust experts on this - the author of the Yew framework seems to think that Web Assembly Interface Types (https://github.com/WebAssembly/interface-types/blob/master/proposals/interface-types/Explainer.md) will allow Yew to eventually become faster than Vue, React, Angular, etc. Is there general consensus on this in the Rust community? The prospect of mixing Rust (for the performance critical pieces) with TS on the front end doesn't seem super appealing to me.