3 ms·

Can you post benchmarks? serde_json isn't known for its throughput.

mustache_kimono 2y ago
I think you may have missed my point? Which was -- I think the Rust is more understandable, is easier to write, and is easier to get correct, more quickly. My version also isn't 1:1. I only wrote an approximation of what the author noted was the most relevant portion in the blog post. If you'd like to benchmark my version you're certainly welcome to, once you've cleaned it up a bunch. The C++ version seems to be SIMD accelerated though? If you want a more relevant performance comparison, perhaps you should find SIMD accelerated Rust JSON library.
- dxuh 2y ago
  Frankly the C++ version is lacking whitespace and is shorter than it needs to be and as someone who uses C++ daily and has used simdjson before it is still much easier to read than the Rust version. Have you considered that this is somewhat subjective?
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    They seem very similar to me except that 1) I can see the Rust has error handling and I can't tell whether the C++ just doesn't bother or whether there is hidden control flow, since both these very different outcomes are usual in C++. My impression of simdjson is that it just doesn't care - handling errors wouldn't be "ridiculously fast". 2) "Filenames are text" nonsense in the C++. In a sense this is related to error handling, but it's not an error on the popular systems for your files to have names which aren't text, the OS is too lazy to require that. Mainly, when I look at the C++ I see bug opportunities, some of which existed in the Python and some did not, and I imagine the expenditure of time to hunt down those bugs and fix them (or work around them) compared to the tiny saving of using this code.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Both C++ and Rust are equally unintuitive to understand, especially compared to Python which is effectively pseudo-code already. Whichever is more “understandable” is left solely up to the familiarity of the developer in question.

I think you may have missed my point? Which was -- I think the Rust is more understandable, is easier to write, and is easier to get correct, more quickly. My version also isn't 1:1. I only wrote an approximation of what the author noted was the most relevant portion in the blog post. If you'd like to benchmark my version you're certainly welcome to, once you've cleaned it up a bunch. The C++ version seems to be SIMD accelerated though? If you want a more relevant performance comparison, perhaps you should find SIMD accelerated Rust JSON library.

dxuh 2y ago
Frankly the C++ version is lacking whitespace and is shorter than it needs to be and as someone who uses C++ daily and has used simdjson before it is still much easier to read than the Rust version. Have you considered that this is somewhat subjective?
- tialaramex 2y ago
  They seem very similar to me except that 1) I can see the Rust has error handling and I can't tell whether the C++ just doesn't bother or whether there is hidden control flow, since both these very different outcomes are usual in C++. My impression of simdjson is that it just doesn't care - handling errors wouldn't be "ridiculously fast". 2) "Filenames are text" nonsense in the C++. In a sense this is related to error handling, but it's not an error on the popular systems for your files to have names which aren't text, the OS is too lazy to require that. Mainly, when I look at the C++ I see bug opportunities, some of which existed in the Python and some did not, and I imagine the expenditure of time to hunt down those bugs and fix them (or work around them) compared to the tiny saving of using this code.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Both C++ and Rust are equally unintuitive to understand, especially compared to Python which is effectively pseudo-code already. Whichever is more “understandable” is left solely up to the familiarity of the developer in question.