Even though it'd be a while before this really affects the Chrome codebase, it's a real testament to how well Rust nails the safe-but-low-level niche. Google does not lack resources to tool (or staff!) a C++ codebase correctly, nor does it lack resources to build languages[1] targeting these specific problems; that they'd consider Rust isn't just because "it's there".

Story time.

I worked at Google years ago and there was a presentation once done on some optimizations done on Chrome performance. This is probably 10 years ago now.

So C++ has std::string of course. C libraries however use "const char ", which has lots of problems. The C++ designers allowed you to avoid friction here by allowing you to pass a std::string to a function expending a const char . Technically, this is an operator method.

It was discovered that the Omnibar in Chrome went through many layers of translations between std::string and const char *, back and forth, such that there were approximately 25,000 string copies per keypress in the Omnibar.

So my point is that even with a ton of resources writing good, efficient and performant C++ is still nontrivial. And that's really the point of Rust (well, one of them).

mseepgood

How would Rust help here? Isn't it famous for having too many string types?

imron

It's the 'too many string types' that helps.

With C++, if you have char*'s (because you don't need to own the memory) and you pass it to a function that takes a const std::string& (because it also doesn't want to own the memory), then there will still be an implicit conversion to a temporary std::string (involving an allocation) despite neither the caller or the callee needing to own any memory.

With Rust, if you have a &str (because you don't need to own the memory) and you pass it to any function that takes a String (or even the unidiomatic &String), then you will get a compile error. There won't be any implicit conversion of types and therefore no implicit allocation. If you really want to pass it, you need to explicitly convert it, making the cost of the allocation explicit.

Rust's "too many strings" model says "there are many different ways in which you can use string-like objects, each with their own performance tradeoffs. Know which one you want to use in your code or I won't compile".

mwcampbell

This discussion is making me wonder if windows-rs [1], the crate with official Rust bindings for all Windows APIs, is doing something that's not idiomatic Rust. Specifically, for any Windows API function that takes a UTF-16 string as a parameter, the signature for that parameter is something like "impl IntoParam". The crate then implements that trait for String and &str, so you can pass a normal Rust UTF-8 string (even a string literal), and it'll be automatically converted to a freshly-allocated, null-terminated UTF-16 string (which gets freed after the function call). That seems like it could lead to the same thoughtless inefficiency as in the story about the Chrome omnibox.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs