gonna release my compressor soon
1
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 20:27
My compressor is awesome. You can take its output and run it through it again and it'll compress it even more. I get about 1% per run after the first run. Except it takes exponential time in the number of runs. So it gets pretty slow by the 4th run.
2
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 20:29
Can it compress random data?
3
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 20:34
Can it compress PERL code?
4
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 20:40
Can it see why kids love the delicious taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
5
Name:
HMA MEME FAN
2008-09-07 20:44
Can it HAX MY ANUS?
6
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 20:45
7
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 21:12
>>6
And the decompression algorithm is called CDR amirite?
...sorry.
8
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-07 21:21
>>6
Actually it is the CUDDER algorithm
9
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-09 17:31
Will it blend?
10
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-09 18:20
OMG INFINITE COMPRESSION
11
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-09 20:14
>>10
it exists but the man doesn't want you to know about it
12
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-09 23:21
13
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 0:05
I bet you're using the LZ77 algorithm.
I implemented it in my junior year in college.
14
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 0:28
void Compress(CFILE* InFile, CFILE* OutFile, DWORD Size)
{
DWORD i;
BYTE crap;
for (i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
crap = InFile->GetByte();
crap = (crap & 0x00);
OutFile->PutByte(crap);
}
}
15
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 2:27
>>14
Use references, faggot, and give parameters lower case names.
void Compress(CFILE& in, CFILE& out, DWORD size)
{
for(DWORD i = 0; i < size; ++i)
out.PutByte(in.GetByte() & 0x00);
}
16
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 4:13
>>15
Take your sepples and shove it up your arse.
17
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 11:01
>>16
What are you talking about? Both
>>15 and
>>14 are sepples; why'd you single-out
>>15 ?
18
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 11:05
>>17
B
ack to /b/,
Bjarne!
19
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 14:30
>>17
You don't think GetByte and PutByte could be function pointers?
20
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 14:49
>>19
Could be, but that would be
fucking stupid,
21
Name:
Anonymous
2008-09-10 14:51
>>19
So you're too good for conventions, huh? Well,
fuck you .
22
Name:
Anonymous
2009-03-06 6:04
Any paths You could?
23
Name:
2010-10-23 17:43