On 4/6/2024 10:27 AM, fir wrote:
fir wrote:
sorry for starting many threads but soon i will go away for some months
i guess so the group will be get rid of my threads - and until i am
i dont like to ged bored if i code something so i prefer to
start many threads just for fun and with no big reason
here such thread is write code for RLE (run length encoding)
then i cpuld eventualy compare it how i would write it -
it shouldnt be hard task but may be good to compare style
of coding or something (i will probbaly write it a bit later and post
it, but dont know yet know when)
note lek beack tehen years ago when i was learning programming
i noted and somewhat took teh opinion that this RLE is lame
but thinking today its not necessary such lame, simple and basic
doesnt necessary means lame imo
Exactly. It is the most basic compressor, for
students unfamiliar with the topic.
Based on reading the code, I wrote one for a different purpose
that runs at 300MB/sec. I used the "concept" of RLE, but on a
different scale. The concept is not without application,
even today. There are reasons to do it. But they may not
seem obvious at first.
Writing a compressor that uses a symbol dictionary, comes next.
A particularly bad one, would be the LZ4 compressor. Discussed here.
Used as a compressor in the Firefox source code.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ4_%28compression_algorithm%29
"LZ4 only uses a dictionary-matching stage (LZ77), and unlike other
common compression algorithms does not combine it with an entropy
coding stage (e.g. Huffman coding in DEFLATE)."
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)