Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site turtlevax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!turtlevax!ken
From: ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski)
Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.micro
Subject: Re: Squeezing program files.
Message-ID: <784@turtlevax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 13:35:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: turtleva.784
Posted: Fri Jun  7 13:35:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 02:24:21 EDT
References: <1414@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski)
Organization: CADLINC, Inc. @ Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.dcom:1027 net.micro:10711
Summary: 

In article <1414@ecsvax.UUCP> hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) writes:
>  Source programs without trailing blanks compress [with static Huffman
>coding]to about 50% of original size, while source program files which
>include trailing blanks compress to about 30% of original size.
>---------
>  It is my impression that the typical squeeze programs use the
>dynamic Huffman method.  Is this so?  If it is, should we consider
>changing to the static method?

I think you should consider changing to Lempel-Ziv Compression (posted
to the net as "compress", version 3.0), which normally gives 70%
compression (30% of original size) to text.  The program is fast, and
adapts to whatever type of data you give it, unlike static Huffman
coding.  It usually produces 90% (!) compression on binary images.
-- 

Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,nsc,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA