7 ms·
This is better presentation than README, which currently is marketing-heavy and technically weak. Project as an experiment is acceptable and interesting but cer
by forgotpwd16 8mo ago
This is better presentation than README, which currently is marketing-heavy and technically weak. Project as an experiment is acceptable and interesting but certainly isn't "next-generation" when has (assuming benchmarks are valid) <0.2% ratio improvement to an outdated algorithm, at expense (assuming description is valid) of much worse compression/decompression speed. Note such slowdown isn't implementation detail but expected by design; neighbor graph, Levenshtein distance, edit scripts, etc, kill speed. In the end compression is trade-off between ratio and speed, and methods benchmark to both rather one.
As overall note, AIs when you prompt "apply concept X in Y" (or anything really) will tell you what a great idea and then output something that without domain knowledge you've no idea if it's correct or if even makes sense at all. If don't want to do a literature research/study, recommend at least throwing the design back to the machine and asking for critique.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- keepamovin 8mo agoI launched with the hype version README. What can I say? Rolled the dice, didn't really care that much. Because the code worked. Spent a few hours iterating on it from the first version - to get the speed to that, and the gains over LZW. That's what I wanted, that's how it happened.
- gus_massa 8mo ago> an outdated algorithm Sorry, not my area. Which are the current best algorithms? (Bonus points if they are open source so the OP can add them to the benchmark.)
- vunderba 8mo agoThere was a post on HN a few years back on Zstandard which at the time was one of the better compression algorithms out there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25455314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25455314