python implementation of a new integer encoding algorithm.

[Jonas Wielicki]

Dear Jan-Hein,

I read through the discussion, but until you said it directly, I did not
realize that you wanted feedback on your *python* code.

In that case, let me note a few things which make it unlikely that you
will get (usable) feedback:

1. The code on your website is not formatted and highlighted properly.
This makes it hard to read. Of course, people can copy-paste it into
their favourite highlighter, but that poses a hurdle some (including me)
do not want to take, because of ...

2. ... we don’t exactly know how the algorithm is supposed to work.
Unfortunately (and I’m quite sure that this is not due to the fact that
you’re not native english, because I was able to follow your mails
without issues), your description of the algorithm on your blog is full
of typos and incomplete or ambiguous grammar. It could also use some
mathematical typesetting to make it more readable.


I propose that you reformat both your description of the algorithm and
your implementation to get a better review on it. In fact, I am quite
curious about it (having implemented a MIDI-ish format I stole from
Matroska without knowing, for my pet binary storage format, where I need
small (less than 8 bit) at a number of occasions), but currently I don’t
have the time to dig through it if it doesn’t read fluently (there are
exams over here). I assume that many other people also have much other
stuff to do.


Another idea to make it more attractive for people to review your code
(if you are not after a functional review) would be to go to, e.g.,
<https://codereview.stackexchange.com>. I am not quite sure whether it
would be "on-topic" there -- it would probably require a concise
description of the algorithm so that people can make their own
mind-model about how the algorithm is *supposed* to work and how your
code works, to compare and see potential for optimization, code wise.

best regards,
jwi

p.s.:

On your website:
> The natural character size is 2 bits, and that will eventually become
> the standard.

What is it with that statement? That bugged me when I visited the page
for the first time. Just marketing-wise, I believe you should not
confront people with a controversial statement, taking it for granted,
on the first glance. It would be better to state that this is your
implementation of Algorithm A (link to concise description included) and
you would like to get feedback on your implementation or whatever.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20150219/196bca59/attachment.sig>