[strager]

>> Someone has to implement them. Note that they're also implemented in the C++ code, so the comparison is fair. > > I'm not sure I buy this argument in code like yours which almost invariably should just use the standard library and definitely needs to measure before replacing standard library features with your own hand-rolled equivalents.

I did for the C++ code. And for a fair comparison, I ported my C++ vector to Rust.

If I made the C++ code use a custom vector and the Rust code use the standard vector, then people would complain that the Rust code was artificially shorter.

> For example in strolling around this code, I ran into sorted_search. But, isn't this just [&str]::binary_search() except written by hand?

Yes. But the standard binary_search isn't `const`, and mine is. I need to run my `sorted_search` at compile time to map translatable strings to magic numbers. (The C++ code does this too.)

> Actually the fact there are "linked lists" and yet there's no concurrency sets off alarms in my head. [...] why Linked Lists ?

The linked lists are actually linked lists of arrays. They are not grade-school linked lists with one item per node. In the C++ code, the classes are linked_bump_allocator (a memory arena) and linked_vector (a deque-style container).

I wrote linked_bump_allocator so I could use an arena allocator for parser ASTs, temporary strings, etc. I originally used Boost's monotonic allocator, but I wanted a rewind feature, so I wrote my own implementation.

I wrote linked_vector only because std::deque took too long to compile. (I'm not kidding.) So I could have easily used Rust's standard deque.

[yazaddaruvala]

It really depends on what you’re trying to benchmark here.

If you’re benchmarking the two compilers for lines of code, you’ve done a really good job and people shouldn’t complain about the Rust code length.

> then people would complain that the Rust code was artificially shorter.

If you’re trying to benchmark Rust development vs C++ development, then people cannot complain that the Rust code is “idiomatically shorter”.

Arguably right now your benchmark has the Rust code “artificially longer”. Which is fine if that is what you’re intentionally trying to measure.

[vegerot]

> If I made the C++ code use a custom vector and the Rust code use the standard vector, then people would complain that the Rust code was artificially shorter.

People would also complain that even though you claim “my C++ code is longer than Rust but compiles just as fast”, you’re not factoring the extra things Rust’s versions do