On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 09:32:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
Fun, but seems pretty useless in practice.
I disagree. Ecoji (base1024) has bigger character set meaning
that it can encode more information per emoji than base64 can
encode per character.
For example ecoji encoded "abcde" looks like this: "ππΈπ¦π"
And base64 encoded one looks like this: "YWJjZGU=".
Even though each emoji is 4 bytes long, there is a noticable
difference in size when we are talking about larger chunks of
data:
---
$ dd if=/dev/urandom bs=4K count=16K of=test.raw
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 1.90423 s, 35.2 MB/s
$ dd if=test.raw | ./ecoji-d | wc -c
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 6.7699 s, 9.9 MB/s
71591534 # Size increased just by 6%
$ dd if=test.raw | base64 | wc -c
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 0.750174 s, 89.5 MB/s
90655837 # 35%(!) increase in size
---
And if we move to real word scenarios, where web pages are
gzip'ped most of the time:
---
$ dd if=test.raw | gzip -c | wc -c
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 5.49022 s, 12.2 MB/s
67119122 # Raw files are terrible for compression
$ dd if=test.raw | ./ecoji-d | gzip -c | wc -c
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 27.9972 s, 2.4 MB/s
32178275 # 48% improvement
$ dd if=test.raw | base64 | gzip -c | wc -c
67108864 bytes (67 MB, 64 MiB) copied, 10.3381 s, 6.5 MB/s
68892893 # Pretty bad, yeah
---
So yeah, ecoji is better than base64 in everything but speed.
Speed will be improved. Later.
