rtrb VS rust

https://github.com/mgeier/rtrb is about as fast as you can get an spsc queue.

Thanks! Your link lead me to https://github.com/mgeier/rtrb/issues/39 where they compare to different queues. Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you again!

Nice! Would love to see benchmarks against the other ring buffer crates, like in these comparisons: https://github.com/mgeier/rtrb/issues/39

I'm continuing to work on a new musical live performance software, Moiré. I just figured out how to make use of dynamically sized Vecs without allocating or deallocating in the audio thread using basedrop and rtrb. I'm using SixtyFPS for the GUI.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.

There’s also other reasons. For example, take binary search:

* prefetch + cmov. These should be part of the STL but languages and compilers struggle to emit the cmov properly (Rust’s been broken for 6 years: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53823). Prefetch is an interesting one because while you do optimize the binary search in a micro benchmark, you’re potentially putting extra pressure on the cache with “garbage” data which means it’s a greedy optimization that might hurt surrounding code. Probably should have separate implementations as binary search isn’t necessarily always in the hot path.

* Eytzinger layout has additional limitations that are often not discussed when pointing out “hey this is faster”. Adding elements is non-trivial since you first have to add + sort (as you would for binary search) and then rebuild a new parallel eytzinger layout from scratch (i.e. you’d have it be an index of pointers rather than the values themselves which adds memory overhead + indirection for the comparisons). You can’t find the “insertion” position for non-existent elements which means it can’t be used for std::lower_bound (i.e. if the element doesn’t exist, you just get None back instead of Err(position where it can be slotted in to maintain order).

Basically, optimizations can sometimes rely on changing the problem domain so that you can trade off features of the algorithm against the runtime. These kinds of algorithms can be a bad fit for a standard library which aims to be a toolbox of “good enough” algorithms and data structures for problems that appear very very frequently. Or they could be part of the standard library toolkit just under a different name but you also have to balance that against maintenance concerns.

But that said, - and again I might be a bit biased - Groovy is too slow for me! I compared it to Rust in this LinkedIn post and it was waaaaay slow. Keep in mind that subjectively comparing programming languages might be a tricky business. But at the end, it will be up to your use case/project to prefer a language over the other.

13. Rust - $87,012

Yes, actually.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d0ea1d767925d53b2230e...

Limited to the rust codebase itself, but I'm sure the developers would force it on everyone else if they thought they could get away with it.