3 ms·
I didn't see any efficiencies that exceeded 100%. Are you counting code points rather than bytes in the unicode output size? The code points still have to be se
by jeremyjh 9y ago
I didn't see any efficiencies that exceeded 100%. Are you counting code points rather than bytes in the unicode output size? The code points still have to be serialized as bytes after that is done, but since Twitter limits you by the number of characters, not the number of bytes, this amounts to a sort of compression of data into Twitter. On the wire it would still be an expansion of course.
- piaste 9y agoFor raw packets obviously not, but if: - you're sending big byte arrays over json/xml - you cannot switch to a more efficient medium - (but you can make your remote counterpart adopt a different encoding) - and you still need to maximize your throughput then I guess you might consider base85 for utf-8 or base32k for utf-16?
- jbg_ 9y agoJSON is UTF-8 by definition, so at best you'd be using a format that looked similar.
- supernintendo 9y agoOh yeah, good point (and one that I should have thought of before posting my comment). The scenario I described would actually be less efficient.