>>100
Anything that doesnt achieves far worse compression ratio. Still they are faster than huffman codes and bit-shifting isnt an expensive operation.
You trolled me real good, you made me actually check.
I used a LZW compressor I found somewhere which performs about 10-30% better than the classical
compress, which also performs better than a textbook LZW implementation.
On the other side of the ring we have LZO (the free, old and busted version) since it's what I had at hand.
The test corpus is a bunch of files (about 45% text, 25% executables, 15% uncompressed images, 15% random crap) totaling 300MB. LZMA compresses this to less than 90MB.
Compressor Compressed size Compression time Decompression time
GZIP -6 110825245 14.86 9.79
LZOP -9 124417663 61.45 4.51
LZW 147157939 147.87 5.47
LZOP -1 148794061 3.55 3.26
The conclusion here is that
only somebody clinically retarded would use LZW.
If you know of some supposedly better LZW implementation please do tell.