3 ms·
I want to say this looks interesting but it's so sparse on details it's hard to say. What modifications were made to base64? Is the only modification replacing
by cornstalks 5y ago
I want to say this looks interesting but it's so sparse on details it's hard to say. What modifications were made to base64? Is the only modification replacing "+" with "."? Is the rest of the table[1] unchanged? Can it be extended to only use URL-safe characters (like base64url)? How does this compare to other popular/optimized implementations of standard base64? What are its performance characteristics on different sizes of inputs? I've never had to decode 100 MB of base64 data, but I have had to decode a ton of 64-bit base64 strings, for example.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#Base64_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64#Base64_table
- jpegqs 5y ago> Is the rest of the table[1] unchanged? The rest is unchanged, but there is a trick in that the table indexes are shuffled, and shuffled differently depending on the neighboring values in a 24-bit block of source data. > but I have had to decode a ton of 64-bit base64 strings, for example Should be good for small data. It's a pity that no one (or I haven't seen such benchmarks) measures the performance of decoding a large amount of small data (like 1..64 bytes).