swift-evolution VS RE2

[A Vision for Embedded Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/visions/e...) has the details on this new build mode and is quite interesting.

> Effectively, there will be two bottom layers of Swift, and the lower one, “non-allocating” Embedded Swift, will necessarily be a more restricted compilation mode (e.g. classes will be disallowed as they fundamentally require heap allocations) and likely to be used only in very specialized use cases. “Allocating” Embedded Swift should allow classes and other language facilities that rely on the heap (e.g. indirect enums).

Also, this seems to maybe hint at the Swift runtime eventually being reimplemented in non-allocating Embedded Swift rather than the C++ (?) that it uses now:

> The Swift runtime APIs will be provided as an implementation that’s optimized for small codesize and will be available as a static library in the toolchain for common CPU architectures. Interestingly, it’s possible to write that implementation in “non-allocating” Baremetal Swift.

I may be out of my depth here as I've only casually used Rust, but this seems similar to Swift's proposed lifetime dependencies[1]. They're not in the type system formally so maybe they're closer to poloneius work

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/3055becc53a3c3...

Swift recently adopted a region-based approach for safe concurrency that builds on Milano et al’s ideas: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

No, it's not. Refcounting CAN be a garbage collection algorithm, but in Swift it's deterministic and done at compile time. Not to mention recently added support for non-copyable types that enforces unique ownership: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

You can stackallocate buffers with unsafe Swift but it's not exactly fun to use. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0322-temporary-buffers.md

If the docs do not suffice, read the concurrency proposals of Swift Evolution. The authors describe the semantics in a very detailed way there.

Looking at the benchmark where C++ is worst compared to other languages, it's depending on the library used. I would guess if they used Google's re2 Regex library instead of Boost's, the result would be different.

https://github.com/google/re2

https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma...

That page says it just includes "some of the most common special characters", and following the link to the Examples page in turn includes a link to the full list.

Python uses backtracking, so this probably isn't O(n), especially with the ability to choose the dictionary.

But with there are non-backtracking matchers which would make this O(n). Here's re2 from https://github.com/google/re2 :

  >>> import re2

RE2 is a Google regular expression library

google's regex library: https://github.com/google/re2

I am currently working with Regex, specifically Re2, and was wondering if there is a real difference between the above expressions for repeated sub-regex.

I ported Google RE2, a regular expression library, to SPVM as Resource::Re2, and created SPVM::Regex, a wrapper for it.

I searched for I found that there is a Perl compatible regular expression called Google RE2. It is written in C++, and with Google RE2, I can use Perl-compatible regular expressions as a library.

Yes, but there is an interesting clarification here. RE2 has used the "caching" approach documented in the Ruby bug ticket linked for quite some time (since its birth?): https://github.com/google/re2/blob/954656f47fe8fb505d4818da1...

It is mentioned only briefly in Cox's article on regex matching in the wild. Look for the word "bitstate": https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp3.html

I didn't know Perl had implemented this trick too.

The paper[1] cited in the Ruby bug ticket was published very recently. When I first read the Ruby bug ticket, I immediately wondered how they sidestepped the memory use problem. The paper's abstract seems to suggest there is some technique for doing so, as it rebuffs the idea of doing "full" memoization. Alas, I do not have access the paper. (Which is fucking ridiculous.)

[1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9519427