Why my rust rewrite of Mozilla's readability is better than original readability(github.com)
github.com
Why my rust rewrite of Mozilla's readability is better than original readability
https://github.com/theiskaa/readabilityrs
4 comments
So why? The link just goes to the project GitHub repo, and README does not explain as far as I can see.
The README.md is 9k of dense text, but does explain it: faster, more efficient, more accurate & more sensible.
Rust port feature: The implementation "passes 93.8% of Mozilla's test suite (122/130 tests)" with full document preprocessing support.
Test interpretation/sensibility: The 8 failing tests "represent editorial judgment differences rather than implementation errors." It notes four cases involving "more sensible choices in our implementation such as avoiding bylines extracted from related article sidebars and preferring author names over timestamps."
This means that the results are 93.8% identical, and the remaining differences are arguably an improvement. Further improvement, extraction accuracy: Document preprocessing "improves extraction accuracy by 2.3 percentage points compared to parsing raw HTML."
Performance:
I would add a comparison benchmark (memory and processing time), perhaps with barcharts to make it more clear with the 8 examples of the differing editorial judgement for people who scan read.
Rust port feature: The implementation "passes 93.8% of Mozilla's test suite (122/130 tests)" with full document preprocessing support.
Test interpretation/sensibility: The 8 failing tests "represent editorial judgment differences rather than implementation errors." It notes four cases involving "more sensible choices in our implementation such as avoiding bylines extracted from related article sidebars and preferring author names over timestamps."
This means that the results are 93.8% identical, and the remaining differences are arguably an improvement. Further improvement, extraction accuracy: Document preprocessing "improves extraction accuracy by 2.3 percentage points compared to parsing raw HTML."
Performance:
* Built in Rust for performance and memory safety
* The port uses "Zero-cost abstractions enable optimizations without runtime overhead."
* It uses "Minimal allocations during parsing through efficient string handling and DOM traversal."
* The library "processes typical news articles in milliseconds on modern hardware."
I would add a comparison benchmark (memory and processing time), perhaps with barcharts to make it more clear with the 8 examples of the differing editorial judgement for people who scan read.
How does the approach here differ from dom_smoothie (https://github.com/niklak/dom_smoothie)?
Why not contribute to Ladybird instead?