Programmer Humor

unsigned int turn_char_to_int(char pChar)
{
    switch(pChar)
    {
    case 'a':
        return 10;
    case 'b':
        return 11;
    case 'c':
        return 12;
    case 'd':
        return 13;
    case 'e':
        return 14;
    case 'f':
        return 15;
    case 'g':
        return 16;
    case 'h':
        return 17;
    case 'i':
        return 18;
    case 'j':
        return 19;
    case 'k':
        return 20;
    case 'l':
        return 21;
    case 'm':
        return 22;
    case 'n':
        return 23;
    case 'o':
        return 24;
    case 'p':
        return 25;
    case 'q':
        return 26;
    case 'r':
        return 27;
    case 's':
        return 28;
    case 't':
        return 29;
    case 'u':
        return 30;
    case 'v':
        return 31;
    case 'w':
        return 32;
    case 'x':
        return 33;
    case 'y':
        return 34;
    case 'z':
        return 35;
    case ' ':
        return 36;
    case '.':
        return 37;

    }
}

Are you a monster or just stupid?

At first I thought, "How are they going to compress 256 values, i.e. 1 Byte sized data, by "rearranging into integers"?

Then I saw your code and realized you are discarding 228 of them, effectively reducing the available symbol set by about 89%.

Speaking of efficiency: Since chars are essentially unsigned integers of size 1 byte and 'a' to 'z' are values 97 to 122 (decimal, both including) you can greatly simplify your turn_char_to_int method by just substracting 87 from each symbol to get them into your desired value range instead of using this cumbersome switch-case structure. Space (32) and dot (46) would still need special handling though to fit your desired range.

Bit-encoding your chosen 28 values directly would require 5 bit.

Hey, this is awesome for saving space when writing things to NFC tags! Every bit still matters with those suckers

That's bootleg gzip.

Real kings store 32 booleans as a single int

And here I was wasting time with bit fields to make my bools smaller.

My colleague said he didn’t see the point in storing enums as shorts or bytes instead of a full word, so I retaliated by storing them in their string form instead, arguing that it’ll be compressed by the db engine.

CPU still pulls a 32kb block from RAM...

Oh god, please don't. Just use utf8mb4 like a normal human being, and let the encoding issues finally die out (when microsoft kills code pages). If space is of consideration, just use compression, like gz or something.

After all.. Why not?

Why shouldn’t I ignore the 100+ cultures whose character set couldn’t fit into this encoding?

dammit yesterday was too long i thought this was a dnd joke at first

I do this kind of thing everyday as a firmware engineer :)

Not useless -- you have a future in tiny, embedded systems.

I'm not sure if this is the right setting for technical discussion, but as a relative elder of computing I'd like to answer the question in the image earnestly. There's a few factors squeezing the practicality out of this for almost all applications: processor architectures (like all of them these days) make operating on packed characters take more operations than 8 bit characters so there's a speed tradeoff (especially considering cache and pipelining). Computers these days are built to handle extremely memory demanding video and 3d workloads and memory usage of text data is basically a blip in comparison. When it comes to actual storage and not in-memory representation, compression algorithms typically perform better than just packing each character into fewer bits. You'd need to be in a pretty specific niche for this technique to come in handy again, for better or for worse

I was hopping it was somehow badly implemented in python and each char ended up occupying 2Gb

Interesting idea but type conversion and parsing is much more slower than wasting 1 byte. Nowadays memory is "free" and the main issue is the execution speed.

I have a coworker who does stuff like this and it's always low-benefit optimizations that cost the team time to interface with - but I do still kind of love it

Bro reinventing sixbits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-bit_character_code

You would have done well with this kind of thinking in the mid-80s when you needed to fit code and data into maybe 16k!

As long as you were happy to rewrite it in Z80 or 6502.

Another alternative is arithmetic encoding. For instance, if you only needed to store A-Z and space, you code those as 0-26, then multiply each char by 1, 27, 27^2, 26^3 etc, the add them.

To unpack them, divide by 27 repeatedly, the remainder each time is each character. It's simply covering numbers to base-27.

It wouldn't make much difference from using 5 bits per char for a short run, though, but could be efficient for longer strings, or if encoding a smaller set of characters.