Programmer Humor

32503 readers

358 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

662

New File Format (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

zstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more

[–] gamma@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Thought I'd check on the Linux source tree tar. zstd -19 vs lzma -9:

❯ ls -lh
total 1,6G
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 1,4G Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 128M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.lzma
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 138M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.zst

About +8% compared to lzma. Decompression time though:

zstd -d -k -T0 *.zst  0,68s user 0,46s system 162% cpu 0,700 total
lzma -d -k -T0 *.lzma  4,75s user 0,51s system 99% cpu 5,274 total

Yeah, I'm going with zstd all the way.

[–] jodanlime@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

Nice data. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer zstd

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

damn I did not know zstd was that good. Never thought I'd hear myself say this unironically but thanks Facebook

[–] gamma@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Very true, good point

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

As always, you gotta know both so that you can pick the right tool for the job.