Taskflow VS pest

For parallel programming nowadays, personally I reach for C++ Taskflow when I really care about performance, or a mix of core.async and running multiple load balanced instances when I’m doing more traditional web backend stuff in Clojure.

Also, you can take a look to good libraries. The problem is that very often libraries are heavily templated, so It could be hard. For example, I like the style of the Taskflow library, I think is very clear, is relatively small, while makes use of more advanced techniques: https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

Cool. Thanks! How does it compare to taskflow?

I've not seen yet, but it's been a bit since I looked last, any evidence of being able to build a computation graph and "save" it to re-run on new inputs. Something like https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

It seems you're describing something a generic parallel task framework. Check taskflow for a production ready example https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/blob/master/

- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow (I recommend to learn it first since its API and documentation are excellent)

If you want some sort of "job" system, where you submit items to a some sort of queue to be processed in parallel, try searching for a thread pool - there isn't one in the standard library, but there's about a million implementations online. There are more complicated versions of that idea, that describe computation as a directed acyclic graph, such as taskflow.

The tooling decisions affect engine design though. For example if you want to have visual representation of job graph as it happened in specific frame of interest you need to pass the information around about job relationships and output it to a tool of choice. For example see https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.

And some related parser tools: - https://github.com/kevinmehall/rust-peg - https://github.com/pest-parser/pest - https://github.com/lalrpop/lalrpop

I had recently completed the first year of my Computer Science class at school and will begin my second year soon. My schools' class forces the use of Java programming language, and I absolutely hated it. So, over the course of a little less than a month, I wrote my own programming language, in Rust (objectively best programming language), using pest, to be as similar to Rust as possible, but compiling to Java.

I second pest.rs. Using it is fairly intuitive and there's also a live playground on their website which is great for quickly developing and testing your AST (abstract syntax tree) parser for whatever language you're implementing.

This is where you'll run into trouble. People who write parsing-related Rust crates generally write things like pest that expect their syntax to be defined completely at compile time so the parser can be run through the compiler's optimizers for best performance.

Give https://pest.rs a try.

For now I have used pest to generate an AST that borrows from the given input. But if I can manage to make the parser generic over the return type it may be worth a refactoring.