11–20 of 116 posts
Great to see another piece of code written in Rust. That said, how do you make claims of something being blazingly fast without any comparisons to implementations in other languages such as C or C++?
[0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
Great to see another piece of code written in Rust. That said, how do you make claims of something being blazingly fast without any comparisons to implementations in other languages such as C or C++?
The claim is that it is a blazingly fast hash function compared with other hash functions , and it is also written in Rust. Rust is an enabling technology, but not able to be dramatically faster than a comparable C/C++ implementation, as a general rule.
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
It might be nice to factor this out into a separate library, but it's fairly harmless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is that it is a blazingly fast hash function compared with other hash functions , and it is also written in Rust. Rust is an enabling technology, but not able to be dramatically faster than a comparable C/C++ implementation, as a general rule.
The title is confusing. If it tries to compete with other hash functions, why does the title have to bear "in Rust"?
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
Another advantage over C++ is that it's much more clear what code is safe and what isn't, as unsafe code is wrapped in `unsafe` blocks, as you mentioned.
This is is not a knock against SeaHash, but I was looking at buffer.rs [0] and noticed pretty much all the code is wrapped in unsafe {} blocks. How much advantage is there to rust implementation vs c++ if unsafe is used so liberally? I ask this in ernest. [0] https://docs.rs/crate/seahash/2.0.0/source/src/buffer.rs
I'm no expert on the topic. IIRC, Rust does not have the same kind/amount of unspecified behavior as C/C++ do.
FYI: This is a "highly optimized version of SeaHash" (see comment in first line) with "optimized" meaning fiddling with raw pointers. You can find a version without any unsafe code is in `reference.rs`. I have no idea how fast the reference implementation is.