[brabel]

There are two or three branches with different versions of the Rust code, and the author is using the fastest one. What you believe will make the Rust code faster won't, trust me.

If you think I'm wrong, could you please submit a PR and link here?

@Cryptonic 's suggestions are laughable. Try using arrays as HashMap keys in Rust :D nope, won't even compile let alone be fast. There was a way smarter attempt here to do something *based on* arrays: https://github.com/renatoathaydes/prechelt-phone-number-enco...

The DigitBytes struct is needed because just using arrays (I guess they mean slices, as arrays are obviously wrong) is incredibly slow - it would need to consider the whole array every time instead of just the relevant bytes - far slower than `Vec`. This is indeed fast, but slower than Vec.

The other suggestion: print everything at the end?? Do we even know what the objective is here? It's not to finish first, but to show to the user the results as soon as possible. It's like people don't even read the problem proposition and still think it's ok to criticize... also, Rust is using buffered IO... ALSO, the benchmark only prints a single line at the end for the two last runs, essentially doing "print it all at the end".

[dwohnitmok]

I think you're missing the point of my comments. I know neither enough of CL nor Rust to make a comment on the performance (I have less than ~1000 lines of experience in either and have only built the smallest of toy projects in either language).

This is my original sentiment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842546

mst stated that the author explicitly called out the Rust code as suboptimal. That is a misreading of the original text, which was referring to a previous iteration. The author (and you) clearly does not think the current Rust code is suboptimal.

[brabel]

> The author (and you) clearly does not think the current Rust code is suboptimal.

Sorry if it looked like I was being harsh on you particularly, I was not... I was being harsh on people making comments like "this Rust code is very slow" without showing their faster code, making suggestions that would almost certainly be slower or not even compile and other similar things I observed in this thread.

Never believe anyone saying "this could be much faster" without showing their code so people can actually check it.

I will believe the OP's code is slow when I see a faster implementation, which I haven't.