4 ms·
If you can count on every printable ascii character being not-mangled, you can use ascii85/base85/Z85 (5 "ascii characters" to 4 bytes) instead of base64.
by ElectricalUnion 3y ago
If you can count on every printable ascii character being not-mangled, you can use ascii85/base85/Z85 (5 "ascii characters" to 4 bytes) instead of base64.
- raverbashing 3y agoThere's probably a base(bigger number) with Unicode chars today
- bashinator 3y agobase65536, and look who the author is :-D https://github.com/qntm/base65536 https://github.com/qntm/base65536
- cassianoleal 3y agoWho is the author?
- yccs27 3y agohttps://www.qntm.org https://www.qntm.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=qntm.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=qntm.org
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CaptainFever 3y agoBase65536? https://github.com/qntm/base65536 https://github.com/qntm/base65536
- sudobash1 3y agoBut you need to make sure to use utf-16 or utf-32 instead of utf-8, or you may be worse off.
- dheera 3y agoThose get mangled by text editors that don't support them.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhile a couple of people suggested Base65536, that encoding isn't particularly compact, and it can't be as elegant as 65536 would suggest because it has to dodge special cases in unicode. It's almost always the case that either Base32768 is denser, or encodings with 2^17 or 2^20 characters are denser.
- balou23 3y agothere's also base91, with an efficiency of 6.5 bits of data per printable character, compared to 6.4 with ascii85, 6.0 with base64