[forgotpwd16]

This is better presentation than README, which currently is marketing-heavy and technically weak. Project as an experiment is acceptable and interesting but certainly isn't "next-generation" when has (assuming benchmarks are valid) <0.2% ratio improvement to an outdated algorithm, at expense (assuming description is valid) of much worse compression/decompression speed. Note such slowdown isn't implementation detail but expected by design; neighbor graph, Levenshtein distance, edit scripts, etc, kill speed. In the end compression is trade-off between ratio and speed, and methods benchmark to both rather one.

As overall note, AIs when you prompt "apply concept X in Y" (or anything really) will tell you what a great idea and then output something that without domain knowledge you've no idea if it's correct or if even makes sense at all. If don't want to do a literature research/study, recommend at least throwing the design back to the machine and asking for critique.

[gus_massa]

> an outdated algorithm

Sorry, not my area. Which are the current best algorithms? (Bonus points if they are open source so the OP can add them to the benchmark.)

[vunderba]

There was a post on HN a few years back on Zstandard which at the time was one of the better compression algorithms out there:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25455314

[keepamovin]

I launched with the hype version README. What can I say? Rolled the dice, didn't really care that much. Because the code worked. Spent a few hours iterating on it from the first version - to get the speed to that, and the gains over LZW. That's what I wanted, that's how it happened.