4 ms·

In case anyone is interested, I did an optimized, but much more simple, Rust implementation just today[0], which is faster than the optimized implementation on

In case anyone is interested, I did an optimized, but much more simple, Rust implementation just today[0], which is faster than the optimized implementation on my machine. No indexing into arrays of bytes, no unsafe, etc., no "code golf" measures. Of course, credit where it's due -- these are simply tweaks to Andrew Gallant's code. Looks like idiomatic Rust, which I think is interesting. Shows there is more than one way to skin a cat. [0]: https://github.com/kimono-koans/countwords/blob/master/rust/fast-simple/main.rs https://github.com/kimono-koans/countwords/blob/master/rust/...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arijun 4y ago
Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine? For your other solution, if the time save is consistent from your machine to OP's (a big if), the Rust solution bumps up to 4th place.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine? Results on an M1: my "idiomatic" version is 1.32 times faster than Andrew's original optimized version, whereas the optimized C version is 1.13 times faster than my "idiomatic" version. So, all things being equal, that'd make Rust 3rd, just ahead of C++, and behind Zig and C, if I'm reading the results correctly. More important, to me, would be the other thing -- it's readable, idiomatic Rust. That is, if it had been 5% slower, I think we'd probably all prefer to maintain this code.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    Can you share precisely how you're running the code and measuring timings? I've seen folks flub the measuring for this benchmark by testing much smaller inputs, for example.
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago
      I'm using the kjvbible_x10.txt corpus and using hyperfine on the Mac. I just took a look on Linux and my code that is now running 1.43x faster on the Mac is only 1.02x faster on Ubuntu 22.04. But, again, it's really that it's a Rust commercial -- by leaning on the stdlib, it's possible to get straightforward, but still really fast code. I have no doubt you could make it faster than me and have!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

arijun 4y ago

Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine? For your other solution, if the time save is consistent from your machine to OP's (a big if), the Rust solution bumps up to 4th place.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine? Results on an M1: my "idiomatic" version is 1.32 times faster than Andrew's original optimized version, whereas the optimized C version is 1.13 times faster than my "idiomatic" version. So, all things being equal, that'd make Rust 3rd, just ahead of C++, and behind Zig and C, if I'm reading the results correctly. More important, to me, would be the other thing -- it's readable, idiomatic Rust. That is, if it had been 5% slower, I think we'd probably all prefer to maintain this code.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Can you share precisely how you're running the code and measuring timings? I've seen folks flub the measuring for this benchmark by testing much smaller inputs, for example.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    I'm using the kjvbible_x10.txt corpus and using hyperfine on the Mac. I just took a look on Linux and my code that is now running 1.43x faster on the Mac is only 1.02x faster on Ubuntu 22.04. But, again, it's really that it's a Rust commercial -- by leaning on the stdlib, it's possible to get straightforward, but still really fast code. I have no doubt you could make it faster than me and have!