zengid3 minutes ago
I've been thinking a lot about a solution to Rust's notoriously slow compile times. From my research, it's not the borrow checker that is the issue, it's the heavy optimizations and monomorphization, and macro expansion [0]. There are efforts to improve Rust compile times, but I realized recently that it will never be lightning fast, so we (Rust users) should really be developing more scripting languages and DSLs that we can put all of the fiddly bits into.
Places where we would benefit the most from this is in the Games and UI space. I know game devs have already started by integrating lua, like with mlua [1]. In the UI space i think Makepad is the best example of a team making a dedicated DSL that can be hot-reloaded [2].
I think we need more of this! Go make a DSL next time you feel crushed by the weight of compiling Rust crates!
---
[0] and by my research i mean Claude. this is a great blog with many posts about improving compile times https://nnethercote.github.io/
[1] https://crates.io/crates/mlua . I don't have a reference for a project using it though so please reply if you know of one!
pveierland7 hours ago
The syntax is of course attractive (coming from Rust), and I'd love to replace more of my posix scripts with something saner. I struggle understanding whether the utility of having language literals for IP addresses, IP prefixes, and AS numbers is worth it though [0]. It seems like the confusion added by having custom built-ins like this for one particular domain, in addition to the unclear scoping (what could later also deserve being a language literal), combined with special-case errors as famous in e.g. the YAML Norway problem, makes it seem like such features are better left as some general extension / macro / library capability.
Nix is a language with built-in support for URI literals typed as strings [1], which is a source of confusion and edge-cases, and I believe the feature is now discouraged in general use.
[0] https://roto.docs.nlnetlabs.nl/en/stable/reference/language_...
[1] https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.34/language/string-literals
terts7 hours ago
Hi! Author here. We are actually planning on removing those literals and allowing applications to extend Roto with their own literals [0]. They should do so with care of course, because indeed adding more literals adds some edge cases. Most applications should be able to get by without any special literals though.
everforward5 minutes ago
That makes a lot of sense to me. The implementation feels odd to me, though. If I’m reading it right, I type in literals normally and then all these hooks decide whether they want to change what I’ve typed in? It feels like I have to remember the custom literals I have installed to make sure I don’t accidentally conform to some spec and end up with a custom literal instead of the string I wanted.
Something like EDN readers seem saner to me where I wrap the value in something that denotes the function to use to parse the value. If I do “192.168.1.0/24” I get a string literal, if I do #cidr{192.168.1.0/24} then it hands the value off to the cidr custom literal.
That’s my 2 cents, I hate when things implicitly modify my literals.
berkes3 hours ago
Have you considered collecting all the literals into domains, but ship them by default?
I could, for example, imagine using roto in some of my current work on svg and visuals generation. In which case I'd be greatly helped with literals like "colors", "vec2", "angle" etc. I'd imagine that as long as other literals which I don't need, like an IP address, aren't in the way, it's still greatly beneficial to have a large lib to pick and choose from, around.
pveierland7 hours ago
Nice! That sounds like a good change. I'll try to dive a bit deeper through docs once I find some time :)
junon4 hours ago
Maybe the authors are here to answer this.
The syntax is of course very Rusty, which is cool. However, a sort of obvious question comes to mind - what is the benefit of this over just writing rust, then? Just because the compile times are shorter?
EDIT: should mention I understand why embedded scripting languages exist, having embedded Lua many times. And I love a lot of these features, but to me having an embedded scripting language should simplify the language/API surface area instead of mirroring it almost 1:1. That's what I'm a bit undersold on.
berkes3 hours ago
I'm author of a rust based task manager (not (yet) FLOSS, unfortunately), where we needed "pluggable task sources" (jira, github, trello, etc).
In our setup, the "sources" are more like configuration. Whereas the core, the business logic, is more like code.
Typically, one would configure with e.g. YAML. As we can see in many projects, that have a DSL, in yaml (k9s, GitHub actions, ansible, etc). But, rather than inventing another DSL in yaml, we realized we do need some logic, something very poorly expressed in yaml. And we went for Lua.
Long story to say: if your config typically has some logic in it, it makes sense to go for an embedded scripting language to provide it, rather than building it into the core domain, or to invent yet-another-yaml-amalgation (yayamla?)
abc424 hours ago
Same reason why several projects have integrated Lua to their runtime over the past 30 years. Extensibility and hot reloading.
Philpax4 hours ago
Hot-reloading. You can edit your logic without rebuilding and restarting the host application; this cuts your iteration time from minutes to seconds, especially if the application is in a state that would need to be recreated.
ianm2187 hours ago
Very cool! I have been working on scripting in Rust recently on a Lua project [1].
When you made Roto what kind of workloads were you optimizing for? How are you guys benchmarking performance?
I ran a quick benchmark based on my recent work (Used AI for the code here): ``` fn sum_scalar(n: u64) -> u64 { let total = 0; let i = 0; while i < n { total = total + i; i = i + 1; } total }
fn sum_list(xs: List[u64]) -> u64 {
let total = 0;
for x in xs { total = total + x; }
total
}Rust benchmark.rs ```
use std::time::Instant;
use roto::{List, Runtime};
fn main() {
let rt = Runtime::new();
let mut pkg = rt.compile("bench.roto").unwrap();
let sum_list = pkg.get_function::<fn(List<u64>) -> u64>("sum_list").unwrap();
let n = 1024;
let iters = 50_000;
let xs: List<u64> = (0..n).collect();
let t = Instant::now();
for _ in 0..iters { sum_scalar.call(n); } // adds 0..n with a counter
let scalar = t.elapsed();
let t = Instant::now();
for _ in 0..iters { sum_list.call(xs.clone()); } // adds the SAME 0..n from a List
let list = t.elapsed();
println!("sum_scalar (counter): {scalar:?}");
println!("sum_list (List[u64]): {list:?}");
println!("-> {:.0}x slower", list.as_secs_f64() / scalar.as_secs_f64());
} Output:
sum_scalar (counter): 28.56ms
sum_list (List[u64]): 590.48ms
-> 21x slower
terts7 hours ago
Thanks!
> When you made Roto what kind of workloads were you optimizing for?
We're building a BGP collector with custom filters written in Roto. Imagine a database that constantly receives updates and we want to filter (or transform) those messages based on a script.
> How are you guys benchmarking performance?
Actually, we haven't done that much as feature work has been more important than optimization. There's a lot of opportunities for optimization left on the table.
There are a few benchmarks that we have done: - A very naive fibonacci computation, where we were faster than Lua, - There's this benchmark with a lot of string manipulation made by somebody else where we roughly match Lua: https://github.com/khvzak/script-bench-rs - There's the testing done with Iocaine, where Roto is apparently much faster than Lua. The scripts there do a lot of inspection of fairly simple types.
So the nuanced take is that Roto is fast with numbers and other cases which don't involve complex data structures that some other languages have really optimized for.
> I'm happy to cut a PR against your repo with some of the benchmarks I run on every commit in my own language projects if that would be helpful!
That would be very helpful! A proper benchmark suite is long overdue. (but do note that we don't accept AI contributions)
> sum_scalar (counter): 28.56ms > sum_list (List[u64]): 590.48ms > -> 21x slower
I think the list is so much slower it's calling out to Rust a lot to get items from the list. Lists currently also have a mutex inside, which would need to be locked for each access.
evrimoztamur7 hours ago
Does anyone know if the Roto runtime is serde-able?
A big problem I encountered in using Lua in Rust for my game engine was that I wasn't able to serde the Lua runtime such that I can snapshot a game session and save it in a file, and retrieve it in another context.
terts7 hours ago
Hi! Author here. What we call the `Runtime` in Roto is not a state of the program, it's only the set of functions, types and constants that are available to the script. Roto scripts cannot really keep state at the moment. The advantage of that is that it allows you to run scripts in parallel. We're thinking about how we can keep that property while also having some state.
jeorb2 hours ago
Are there any comparisons to other Rust scripting languages like Rhai and Rune?
zengid22 minutes ago
khvzak has compiled some benchmarks. mlua and roto are some of the fastest: https://github.com/khvzak/script-bench-rs
ryanshrott2 hours ago
Rhai is dynamically typed and uses reference counting, Rune has a full VM with a borrow checker, and Roto compiles to bytecode. The tradeoff is basically faster iteration with Rhai vs faster execution with Roto, with Rune sitting somewhere in the middle but feeling heavier.
[deleted]7 hours agocollapsed
shevy-java4 hours ago
fn contains(range: &AddrRange, addr: &IpAddr) -> bool {
range.min <= addr && addr <= range.max
Syntax is not everything, but it also shows that people too easily think they are great at language design when they really aren't. It's fascinating to watch how people continue with such an approach. How many people are going to use that over, say, python?
terts24 minutes ago
Hi! Author here. You're looking at Rust code there. Roto is very similar but without `&`. I wont pretend to be good at language design, but being similar to Rust has many advantages.
ModernMech3 hours ago
def contains(range_: AddrRange, addr: IpAddr) -> bool:
return range_.min <= addr <= range_.max
hellzbellz1233 hours ago
you missed the closing bracket.
glad you like python, but a good reason to use this is setup being easier, also for people using rust, chances are the syntax is better compared to python. (also for what its worth, i picked up rust MUCH faster than i ever did with python)
the main reason i like rust is its explicitness in typing along with its syntax choices. memory safety means little imo, outside of being difficult to do strange stuff (which could be good or bad depending on your approach)
cargo add roto
code main.rs
-FILE- main.rs use roto::*;
fn main(){ roto::init_runtime() roto::load_script("hello.roto") }
-FILE-END-
code hello.roto
-FILE- hello.roto fn main() { print("Hello, world!"); } -FILE-END-
cargo run