Hacker News Reader

Linked lists are not good for cache locality, it has nothing to do with the language. It'd be my advice over linked lists even if you were doing it in C. Rust does make doubly linked lists in safe code without reference counting impossible, but I don't the argument that you'd use one due to performance or memory overhead.

> Linked lists are not good for cache locality

That doesn't matter if a solution with good cache locality doesn't exist for your problem.

They are not, that's why you would use a flat layout for your primary iteration order. But for any secondary ordering/indexing you might need, if you also need fast insert/removal, chaining in a list can be an option.

The question is fair.

Why would you want to use a non-intrusive doubly-linked list?

AFAIK there is only one answer: you have very big objects and you need O(1) splice.

If you don't have very big objects, or you don't need O(1), pretty much any other data-structure in existence is going to give you much much better performance than a doubly-linked list.

For the only use case for which non-intrusive doubly-linked lists are good at, however, there exists no hardware you can buy for which you can measure a performance difference between ref-counting and not ref-counting.

This has nothing to do with Rust. The same applies to C++, or Java, or Python, or even C. You can do ref counting on any language, and all these languages run pretty much everywhere.

The only thing that Rust gives you over Java, Python, or C here is the possibility to implement a doubly-linked list in safe Rust that will perform the same but that the compiler will prove for you to be memory and thread safe.

Sure, Rust also allows you to use unsafe code, and then prove that safe and create a safe wrapper. It even does this for you and provides this in std::List. But what value does this add? It's more work, and it doesn't perform better, and why a significant number of people have argued in the past that adding std::List was a mistake in one form or another.

> Why would you want to use a non-intrusive doubly-linked list?

Or you have a list of objects with many references to parts inside the list and you want to rearrange those parts from those references at O(1) speed.

Lets say I have pointers two elements A and B in the list. I now want to say that B should come after A, I can do this easily in O(1) time with this with no overhead and all references sees this update instantly. Lets say I put integers in these so the data is embedded in the list. You have many other places referring to elements inside the list and you want those references to track the objects position.

How would you solve this using a Rust compatible data structure?

> The question is fair.

No it is not. Experienced people almost surely knows their use case better than you do.

> there exists no hardware you can buy for which you can measure a performance difference between ref-counting and not ref-counting.

Are you kidding me? Seriously, I don't see how you could believe this unless you never tried to use ref counting to replace other code and compare the performance difference.

> Lets say I have pointers two elements A and B in the list. I now want to say that B should come after A, I can do this easily in O(1) time with this with no overhead and all references sees this update instantly.

You can do this with a vector of pointers as well, at lower space complexity cost (1 pointer per element instead of two), and a lower runtime cost (1 swap of two pointers instead of swapping 4 pointers).

Such a data-structure has also other advantages, like higher cache efficiency, etc.

You can't move an element in a vector in O(1) time. Swapping isn't the same as moving, you'd have to move n elements to make room for the new one.

You mentioned changing the order of two elements in a list, such that one comes after the other.

With a vector of pointers to the elements (C++ std::vector<T*>) this can be easily done in O(1) as I explained above.

If now that I've proven you wrong, you want to change the problem to something else, feel free to state your new problem, and I'll proceed to prove you wrong again.

> You mentioned changing the order of two elements in a list, such that one comes after the other.

Putting B after A is not swapping them, it is putting the element B so it is right after A. You could technically interpret it as you did, but only a contrarian would do that. If you want more people to support rust then you should stop being a contrarian. If you want me and others to assume that the Rust community is full of hard to work with people then please continue, but that wont make people more likely to pick up rust.

If instead of behaving like you do here people would just say "Sure thing, in order to get that performance in rust you just do X and Y!" I bet people would be way more supportive of rust. But if working in the language means that people like you will come and argue like this then why not just write a C library, and then someone will write a Rust wrapper and people are happy? While if they'd write it in unsafe Rust people would come and complain like hell.

> You could technically interpret it as you did, but only a contrarian would do that.

Or you could have been more clearer.

I didn't intend any animosity, but you clearly do.

> If you want more people to support rust

I don't care whether more people support Rust or not. I am just fighting the spectacular amount of disinformation in this thread by malicious actors that have never used Rust.

> Putting B after A is not swapping them, it is putting the element B so it is right after A.

Then you should have written that instead. Take the pointer in the vector right after A, and swap it with B. That way, A is now right before B, and B is now right after A.

> Take the pointer in the vector right after A, and swap it with B. That way, A is now right before B, and B is now right after A.

This is a joke, right? I don't see how it can't be.

But in case it isn't, in almost all problems like this it is assumed that you don't want to change the order of the other elements.

For example, if you wrote a function MoveToDirectlyAfter(a, b), and it did move elements other than a or b people would say that your function contains bugs or that it doesn't do what it says.

In a real life system what is the usual use case for this?

Let's say a user reorders documents with drag and drop. What's the low-level equivalent? Could you help me come up with an algorithm that depends on this?

If write speed is important, I'd just use an in-memory LevelDB-like thing (so a log structured merge tree).

If the data is not much, then I'd optimize for code simplicity.

Before I delve more, are you talking about `rotate` ?

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/rotate

Is that what you want?

The objects don't have to be big. They have to be expensive to copy. These are related but not always identical. Objects that refer to things in the real world (or in a complex model) can be either actually non-copyable or just hard to copy.

> The above statements are then wrong or patronizing or completely misses the point.

I think more what's more going on is that longtime Rust programmers can get frustrated by the sheer volume of people who have never used Rust but dismiss it because they hypothesize that they will need to regularly write things like linked lists in Rust just because they are the easiest data structure to write in C.

When in reality let alone the amount of high performance data structures in the standard library and crate ecosystem mean it's extremely unlikely they'll even feel to write any data structures in the first place. Programming Rust and C or C++ is a very different experience in numerous ways and it is unproductive to expect that not to be the case.

But C++ programmers have ergonomic vectors in the standard library. There is no reason to implement data structures there unless you need them for performance reasons.

And correct use of linked lists is not uncommon at all. Binary trees are linked lists for example, would you implement binary trees as a vector pointing to vectors rather than a linked list containing pointers to similar linked lists?

Yes, I would avoid implementing my own binary tree using linked lists (unless it was just an educational exercise). But also yes, if I did decide that I had a production use case for creating my own binary tree implementation, I would be very likely to look for approaches that use contiguous rather than linked data structures.

I think this perspective you're espousing is "sometimes you just want to knock out a simple bespoke binary tree implementation", but I just don't think that use case makes sense. Either you want to use one from a good library or you have a really good reason to roll your own and it is worth the effort to do it well.

> I think this perspective you're espousing is "sometimes you just want to knock out a simple bespoke binary tree implementation", but I just don't think that use case makes sense. Either you want to use one from a good library or you have a really good reason to roll your own and it is worth the effort to do it well.

There is no library for generic tree data structures, you have to implement those yourself. There are libraries implementing a table interface using ordered binary trees but that is just one of many use cases.

Coincidentally I was just watching this talk from Bryan Cantrill: https://youtu.be/vvZA9n3e5pc. Around the 58 minute mark he shares an anecdote that is relevant to this thread. It boils down to him doing something where he would have written a simple bespoke balanced binary tree in C, but when writing a reimplementation in Rust used a "naive" library approach and was surprised to see a 35% speedup, which boiled down to the library using a btree instead of a balanced binary tree.

This doesn't invalidate your point about there being use cases for binary trees that may necessitate you to write your own, I take you at your word that you've often had strong use cases for this, but I do think it illustrates something I believe to be true, which is that people reach for linked data structures too often, when contiguous ones are a better default.

No, I probably would use the BTreeMap in std instead, assuming I want a search tree. Which is even better, because the primary reason you use binary trees in C is that they are easy to make intrusive. But if I want a priority queue instead there's also BinaryHeap. If I wanted to store data on the branch nodes I might use intrusive_collections. Or maybe if I was dealing with a more complex graph I'd pull in a library like petgraph. If all that fails I could still arena-allocate the nodes to get around the lifetime issues. If I really absolutely wanted to, which I don't see happening any time soon, personally. I'd need a more concrete example there.

I said binary tree, not "Map interface implemented using an ordered binary tree". They are not the same thing.

I am aware, as you might be able to gather by reading past the first sentence of my comment. Of course if you'd just said what you needed the binary tree for, I could have given you a better answer.

If you don't have a use case in mind, I'd suggest just trying to actually use Rust for something instead of spending time trying to construct problems where Rust would be bad at the solution.

You can't even explain how doing something as simple as a binary tree with parent pointer is possible in rust, so my assumption is that it isn't possible and I'd have to make work arounds. I can make work arounds just fine in C++, you don't have to teach me those, but I don't see why I'd learn a language where I'd be forced to make those work arounds rather than use the version that fits my problem best.

It might be possible that you can write nice versions etc, if so I'd like to see them, but it seems everyone is hell bent on just saying "You shouldn't do it!".

> You can't even explain how doing something as simple as a binary tree with parent pointer is possible in rust, so my assumption is that it isn't possible

A beginner learns this in the first week:

    struct Node<'a, 'b> {
        left: Option<&'a Node>,
        right: Option<&'b Node>
    }

Many people don't know how to read or write, but you don't hear them every day claiming that "therefore it must be impossible", yet here we are.

> but I don't see why I'd learn a language where I'd be forced to make those work arounds rather than use the version that fits my problem best.

> but it seems everyone is hell bent on just saying "You shouldn't do it!".

The claim was and still is "there are infinitely more effective - as in faster - ways to learn Rust than by starting with how to write doubly-linked lists".

This whole thread is you failing at 3rd grader logic hard and concluding:

- therefore it is impossible to write doubly-linked lists in Rust

- therefore doubly-linked list in Rust are efficient

- therefore it is impossible to learn Rust

- ...and many other things...

I've taught Rust to a 9th year old, but I don't think I could have taught Rust to a 2 year old, so arguably, I think you are right, in that probably _FOR YOU_ it is impossible to learn Rust, you wouldn't be able to grok how to write doubly-linked lists in Rust properly, you wouldn't be able to master Rust to write efficient code in it, etc.

That's ok, don't be frustrated by it, everybody is different.

Just try to stop projecting your limitations to other people. Particularly in this forum, or when talking with Linux kernel developers, were most people are smart experienced programmers that would learn Rust well in a day and master it in a week.