The current JPEG XL decoder in #Firefox apparently consists more than 100,000 lines of multi-threaded C++

For just decoding an image format.

Not sure what it says about the format, the implementation and the Internet at large.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064

  • Even Rouault@mastodon.social
    4·
    2 months ago

    @bagder@mastodon.social To put in perspective:

    • JPEG: libjpeg 6b encoder+decoder: 24,200 lines of C
    • JPEG: libjpeg-turbo encoder+decoder: 127,000 of C and ASM (multi architectures)
    • JPEG2000: openjpeg encoder+decoder: 50,000 lines of .C
    • JPEG2000: Kakadu commercial encoder+decoder: 214,000 lines of C++ (only coresys component)
    • libjxl: 150,000 lines for the core library, encoder+decoder (deps excluded)
      (All above includes blank lines + inline doc)
      So this is pretty much standard for a modern codec
    • Thomas Depierre@hachyderm.io
      2·
      2 months ago

      @bagder (i will keep banging the drums that most of the FOSS “supply chain” fear could be handled by investing more in programming language tooling, as Rust demonstrate, and that it would be a small overall cost for massive pay off…)

      • daniel:// stenberg://@mastodon.socialOP
        1·
        2 months ago

        @Di4na possibly: I believe Rust is generally a good thing for most things, but I believe the Rust ecosystem with cargo and bazillions of always-updatiing tiny dependencies risk adding friction and at least complicates the equation quite a lot

        • Thomas Depierre@hachyderm.io
          1·
          2 months ago

          @bagder@mastodon.social i mean yes, but at least the compiler is a tool.

          While C and others are uh. Well some are finally realising they have users

        • Mattias Eriksson 🦀🚵‍♂️@mastodon.nu
          1·
          2 months ago

          @bagder@mastodon.social @Di4na@hachyderm.io
          I’m not sure it is a tooling issue. I find cargo to be a great tool, and it have a lock file to let you update deps in a controlled fashion.
          I think this comes down to a cultural issue, where the rust community, much like the JS community, put every little utility function in it’s own library. Hence, you tend to get a gazillion small dependencies that is hard to keep track of.

        • mort@fosstodon.org
          1·
          2 months ago

          @bagder@mastodon.social This is my biggest worry too: they essentially copied the NPM package management model and practices. Good for short term productivity, but I worry that it causes significant long-term maintainability problems.

          And everything is version 0.x, in part due to technical limitations of Cargo: moving out of 0.x is a breaking change, so if you have users on 0.x (which Cargo encourages by treating 0.x specially) moving out of 0.x breaks them.

  • DamonHD@mastodon.social
    2·
    2 months ago

    @bagder We had 100kloc C++ in a smart radiator valve that saved a bunch of extra energy.

    I think it is just a reflection that extracting efficiency requires complexity.

  • Walther@mastodon.social
    2·
    2 months ago

    @bagder I think it is a bit misleading (and arguably unfair) to attribute this to Firefox specifically: this is the reference jpeg-xl implementation, originally created and maintained by Google, and in widespread experimental use across all kinds of browsers, including Chromium, Safari, Edge and more

  • Andre Weissflog@mastodon.gamedev.place
    1·
    2 months ago

    @bagder@mastodon.social yeah, kinda puts into perspective all the ‘negative feedback’ the Chrome team received for removing JPEG-XL support. I wouldn’t want to have such a monstrosity in my code base either, no matter what advantages the actual encoding might have over existing formats.

  • supersingular@chaos.social
    1·
    2 months ago

    @bagder@mastodon.social could isolate the decoder in a WASM runtime and only starting the rewrite if and when the format becomes popular enough :-)

  • Stefan Scholl@mastodon.social
    1·
    2 months ago

    @bagder@mastodon.social browser vendors should coordinate which subset of JPEG XL they want to support, and only this part of the standard needs to get implemented.

    I remember JPEG and that you could never use progressive JPEGs. Some programs even offered an “export for web” feature so that you wouldn’t use any unsupported JPEG features.