I like it, although I didn't take the time to read it all. At first
based on the URL I thought maybe Google Itself had taken notice and
written this webpage, but then I realized not, it's a subdomain undergoogle.com
. It's a smaller reimplementation of the library? With some
creative variations in the API. Does it work as well? That's the key
criterium to me.
The introduction could but does not say why libJudy is special. In my
mind it has to do with the iron-clad by-expanse (radix) approach to
decoding keys (indexes), which is infinitely extensible, coupled with
all the pragmatic tricks employed in the original code to as portably as
possible make the radix method practical, in fact extremely efficient,
in time and space. Digital trees (tries) were always dissed in the past
as inherently inefficient, and we proved that's not true, undermining
decades of complicated work on optimizing the performance of non-radix
(by-population) trees of many kinds. Unfortunately being R&D engineers
rather than academicians, we never "published our work" other than the
source code, which relegated libJudy to the dusty corners of computer
history when HP canceled the project.
In your reimplementation, did you study the existing code (difficult I
know), or just recreate the interface but probably not as efficiently?