HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
quick-lint
cpp-vs-rust
Rust2023–2023
quick-lint / cpp-vs-rust

cpp-vs-rust

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

4Distinct people
8Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
17GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 6:01:08 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by hour8 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-01-06 08:42:49 UTC to 2023-01-07 04:54:39 UTC.

01232023-01-06 08:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 6, 08:002023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 6, 18:002023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 05:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 7, 04:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 6, 08:002023-01-06 08:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 09:002023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC303
Jan 6, 10:002023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 11:002023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 12:002023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 13:002023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 14:002023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 15:002023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 16:002023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 17:002023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 18:002023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 19:002023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 20:002023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 21:002023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 22:002023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 23:002023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 00:002023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 01:002023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 02:002023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 03:002023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 04:002023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 05:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
> I wonder if OP's C++ port doesn't use iterators that much, and how idiomatic it is. I think I only used iterators in places where there's no built-in function on slices like C++'s strchr and strspn. (I think Rust's str has these, but not [u8].) For example: C++: https://github.com/quick-lint/cpp-vs-rust/blob/f8d31341f5cac... std::size_t length = std::strcspn(c, separators); if (c[length] == '\0') { return found_separator{.length = length, .which_separator = static_cast<std::size_t>(-1)}; } const char* separator = std::strchr(separators, c[length]); Rust: https://github.com/quick-lint/cpp-vs-rust/blob/f8d31341f5cac... match s .as_bytes() .iter() .position(|c: &u8| separators.contains(c)) { None => FoundSeparator { length: s.len(),
Read the rest
which_separator: INVALID_WHICH_SEPARATOR, }, Some(length) => { let found_separator: u8 = unsafe { *s.as_bytes().get_unchecked(length) }; match separators.iter().position(|c: &u8| *c == found_separator) {
In A practical comparison of build and test speed between C++ and Rust
> the default automated Rust formating tool is very eager to adds lot of lines by basically keeping only one word per line. This is not my experience. Lifetime and '&mut self' noise (and four-space indentation) did cause rustfmt to sometimes split function signatures across multiple lines, but overall, I think rustfmt did a good job. C++: https://github.com/quick-lint/cpp-vs-rust/blob/f8d31341f5cac... lexer::parsed_identifier lexer::parse_identifier(const char8* input, identifier_kind kind) { const char8* begin = input; const char8* end = this->parse_identifier_fast_only(input); if (*end == u8'\\' || (kind == identifier_kind::jsx && *end == u8'-') || !this->is_ascii_character(*end)) { return this->parse_identifier_slow(end,
Read the rest
/*identifier_begin=*/begin, kind); } else { return parsed_identifier{ .after = end, .normalized = make_string_view(begin, end), .escape_sequences = {}, }; } } Rust: https://github.com/quick-lint/cpp-vs-rust/blob/f8d31341f5cac... fn parse_identifier( &mut self, input: *const u8, kind: IdentifierKind, ) -> ParsedIdentifier<'alloc, 'code> { let begin: *const u8 = input; let end: *const u8 = self.parse_identifier_fast_only(input); let end_c: u8 = unsafe { *end }; if end_c == b'\\' || (kind == IdentifierKind::JSX && end_c == b'-') || !is_ascii_code_unit(end_c) { self.parse_identifier_slow(end, /*identifier_begin=*/ begin, kind) } else { ParsedIdentifier { after: end, normalized: unsafe { slice_from_begin_end(begin, end) }, escape_sequences: None, } } }
In A practical comparison of build and test speed between C++ and Rust

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.