Hadamard

So far, we have been iterating over a single array/Vec/slice at a time. And this already took us through a few basic computation patterns. But we must not forget that with the tools introduced so far, jointly iterating over two Vecs at the same time still involves some pretty ugly code:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
let v1 = vec![1, 2, 3, 4];
let v2 = vec![5, 6, 7, 8];
for (idx, elem) in v1.into_iter().enumerate() {
    println!("v1[{idx}] is {elem}");
    // Ew, manual indexing with slow bound checks and panic risks... :(
    println!("v2[{idx}] is {}", v2[idx]);
}
}

Thankfully, there is an easy fix called zip(). Let’s use it to implement the Hadamard product!

Combining iterators with zip()

Iterators come with an adapter method called zip(). Like for loops, this method expects an object of a type that implements IntoInterator. What it does is to consume the input iterator, turn the user-provided object into an interator, and return a new iterator that yields pairs of elements from both the original iterator and the user-provided iterable object:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
let v1 = vec![1, 2, 3, 4];
let v2 = vec![5, 6, 7, 8];
/// Iteration will yield (1, 5), (2, 6), (3, 7) and (4, 8)
for (x1, x2) in v1.into_iter().zip(v2) {
    println!("Got {x1} from v1 and {x2} from v2");
}
}

Now, if you have used the zip() method of any other programming language for numerics before, you should have two burning questions:

  • What happens if the two input iterators are of different length?
  • Is this really as performant as a manual indexing-based loop?

To the first question, other programming languages have come with three typical answers:

  1. Stop when the shortest iterator stops, ignoring remaining elements of the other iterator.
  2. Treat this as a usage error and report it using some error handling mechanism.
  3. Make it undefined behavior and give the compiler license to randomly trash the program.

As you may guess, Rust did not pick the third option. It could reasonably have picked the second option, but instead it opted to pick the first option. This was likely done because error handling comes at a runtime performance cost, that was not felt to be acceptable for this common performance-sensitive operation where user error is rare. But should you need it, option 2 can be easily built as a third-party library, and is therefore available via the popular itertools crate.

Speaking of performance, Rust’s zip() is, perhaps surprisingly, usually just as good as a hand-tuned indexing loop1. It does not exhibit the runtime performance issues that you would face when using C++20’s range-zipping operations2. And it will especially be often highly superior to manual indexing code, which come with a risk of panics and makes you rely on the black magic of compiler optimizations to remove indexing-associated bound checks. Therefore, you are strongly encouraged to use zip() liberally in your code!

Hadamard product

One simple use of zip() is to implement the Hadamard vector product.

This is one of several different kinds of products that you can use in linear algebra. It works by taking two vectors of the same dimensionality as input, and producing a third vector of the same dimensionality, which contains the pairwise products of elements from both input vectors:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
fn hadamard(v1: Vec<f32>, v2: Vec<f32>) -> Vec<f32> {
    assert_eq!(v1.len(), v2.len());
    v1.into_iter().zip(v2)
                  .map(|(x1, x2)| x1 * x2)
                  .collect() 
}
assert_eq!(
    hadamard(vec![1.2, 3.4, 5.6], vec![9.8, 7.6, 5.4]),
    [
        1.2 * 9.8,
        3.4 * 7.6,
        5.6 * 5.4
    ]
);
}

Exercise

Now, go to your code editor, open the examples/05-hadamantium.rs source file, and address the TODOs in it. The code should compile and runs successfully at the end.

To check this, you may use the following command in your development environment’s terminal:

cargo run --example 05-hadamantium

1

This is not to say that the hand-tuned indexing loop is itself perfect. It will inevitably suffer from runtime performance issues caused by suboptimal data alignment. But we will discuss how to solve this problem and achieve optimal Hadamard product performance after we cover data reductions, which suffer from much more severe runtime performance problems that include this one among many others.

2

The most likely reason why this is the case is that Rust pragmatically opted to make tuples a primitive language type that gets special support from the compiler, which in turn allows the Rust compiler to give its LLVM backend very strong hints about how code should be generated (e.g. pass tuple elements via CPU registers, not stack pushes and pops that may or may not be optimized out by later passes). On its side, the C++ standardization commitee did not do this because they cared more about keeping std::tuple a library-defined type that any sufficiently motivated programmer could re-implement on their own given an infinite amount of spare time. This is another example, if needed be, that even though both the C++ and Rust community care a lot about giving maximal power to library writers and minimizing the special nature of their respective standard libraries, it is important to mentally balance the benefits of this against the immense short-term efficiency of letting the compiler treat a few types and functions specially. As always, programming language design is all about tradeoffs.