
Zstandard - gjvc
http://facebook.github.io/zstd/#other-languages
======
pvg
Previously:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=Zstandard&sort=byPopularity&type=story)

------
maxpert
Used it; love it! Highly recommended for queues, caches etc. If you just need
some decent compression and higher speeds use LZ4.

~~~
borramakot
LZ4 seems really nice for data with a lot of repetition, but not having any
symbolic entropy encoder can really kill the compression for some data. I
often default to LZ4, and used to fall back to gzip if that doesn't work well,
but I've been really impressed with zstd. It's not as commonly used, but if
I'm not concerned about interoperability, I'll be trying to use a lot more
zstd.

------
Waterluvian
I have no opinions on the merits of this project but it got me wondering in
general. Do big company project repos trivially get thousands of stars from
their own employees? Does Github apply any of the strategies that places like
Reddit claim to apply to fight astroturfing and such?

~~~
kjeetgill
Does anyone consider github stars meaningful? Especially enough to game? I ask
this sincerely, I don't think I've never even noticed the star count for a
repo.

~~~
kvn_95
It is _some_ measure of popularity/maintenance. In choosing something to use,
I would first check the activity (as a proxy to rate of bugfixes, for one),
and second I will check the number of stars (as a proxy to how many people are
watching/using this).

If there are more stars, I would assume that if the owner of the repo dropped
off the face of the earth, it's more likely that a new maintainer would step
up.

From my personal observation, those two go together and I usually don't take
them in isolation. One may be able to game the stars, but they won't be able
to game activity (issues, commits, etc.), I'm hoping at least not in a
meaningful manner.

~~~
jimsmart
Exactly this.

Furthermore, I would add the following considerations (in no particular
order): documentation existence/quality, possible use of CI, reasonable
coverage (if shown/known), use/inclusion in other projects, outward
quality/appearance of code (can I read it, could I fix it, could I maintain
it), licensing (clear/compatible) — outside of the repo: are there articles
about it on the web, are there videos about it on Youtube.

It varies depending on what the repo is, and what I might intend to use it
for, as to how in-depth I will actually go with each of these. But it's always
worth a quick scan. There is much that can be inferred from examining such
things.

Stars are just a single indicator among many.

