Comment by ncmncm
6 years ago
The C++ code, anyway, is remarkably prolix, probably 4-10x. It is probably best that they did not attempt Rust, under the circumstances.
6 years ago
The C++ code, anyway, is remarkably prolix, probably 4-10x. It is probably best that they did not attempt Rust, under the circumstances.
From the blog post: > It would be relatively easy to start from the Go version and produce a Rust version, but I had to stop somewhere.
(I bet someone in hacker news is saying "challenge accepted!" and we'll have a xorfilter crate very soon)
Yes, I read that.
The point was that as bad as their C++ code is, their Rust version might be even more disappointing.
Downvoting me just for mentioning Rust only demonstrates immaturity.
(Author here) The project started by taking the cuckoo filter source code (which happens to be written in C++), and extend it. A lot of code comes from that conversion. Other implementations (Morton, CQF) are also written in C++. I write Java normally, so C++ code is not my strength, but C++ was needed to be able to compare with others. A Rust version would be nice!
1 reply →
I downvoted you because wordy code isn't bad. "Prolix" is not a negative adjective when describing code. Golf is a game and not for real systems.
1 reply →