Also, your README describes "modularity" as a difference between fgrep and ripgrep, but ripgrep appears _significantly_ more modular. Its components are split into several libraries, each with their own good API documentation. You might consider mentioning that, as your README kind of makes it sound like ripgrep isn't available as a library where as fgrep is.
BTW, I see a 20% performance jump from rg-0.10 to rg-11.0 for a single file benchmark. What are the key differences between these two versions?
I don't know. It would be easier to explain if I could more easily see what actual commands are being run. Your README just has you running `./all_tests`, but I want to see the actual command line invocations so that I can reproduce them. I'm also not sure which benchmark in particular you're referring to, so I don't know which corpus to use. Look at ripgrep's README for an example of what I mean. All the inputs are carefully specified and the commands being run are clear. You can even see the raw commands for the full benchmark suite: https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/benchsuite...
I realize doing benchmarks right is a lot of work. So if you just have a particular command for me to try and compare performance, then I'd be happy to just do that.
> Note that the matched lines may not the same for a search pattern
Indeed. ;-) That's exactly why I asked. That's a really important UX concern IMO.