3 ms·
You could do that and gzip though; it would probably yield some savings. An obfuscator generating code à la iocc efficiency would be quite neat (e.g. http://ww
by darkmighty 13y ago
You could do that and gzip though; it would probably yield some savings.
An obfuscator generating code à la iocc efficiency would be quite neat (e.g. http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/endoh1.c http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/endoh1.c)
- coldtea 13y ago>You could do that and gzip though; it would probably yield some savings. Nope. That's classic non-engineer thinking. The same kind of thinking that does "optimization" without profiling. Let me introduce you to my friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago"some savings" says the parent. A diminishing return is still a return.
- coldtea 13y agoAnd 0.0000000000001 of a dollar is still money. Yet it's meaningless to do anything about getting it...
- darkmighty 13y agoI can say the savings would probably be greater than the 50 bytes he saved on the domain name. Compressing is not magical, if you compress class names you're still storing at least one instance of each name plus overhead.