Alternative coding base9

[kamil-kielczewski]

Again we go back do idea from #4 but now the goal is not best compression ratio but shorter decoder - which will be used for small codes - 3 versions to check (last one have best compression ratio)

eval(eval("'91419154914591629164950961951'".replace(/9/g, "\\")))

eval(eval("'false141false154false145false162false164false50false61false51'".split("false").join("\\")))

eval(eval("'\\"+"141154145162164050061051".match(/.../g).join("\\")+"'"))

So we actually don't want to use shortest available jsf representation for each number - each number will be directly represented by jsf number code. This allow to short decoder (with cost of lower "compression" ratio)

[kamil-kielczewski]

Function("eval('"+"91419154914591629164950961951".split("9").join("\\")+"')")()

Array["from"]("000141154145162164050061051".matchAll("...")).join("\\").slice(3)

This second one allows to ommit adding \ at the beginning

Below function returns very interesting string:

""+"".matchAll("") 

We get backslash with this RegExp("/")

// slash
console.log(
  (""+Function("return "+[8]["concat"](15)["reduce"](""["slice"]["bind"]((""+"".matchAll("")))))()(""))[0]
)


// backshlash
(""+[]["flat"]["constructor"]("return "+[8]["concat"](15)["reduce"](""["slice"]["bind"]((""+"".matchAll("")))))()((""+[]["flat"]["constructor"]("return "+[8]["concat"](15)["reduce"](""["slice"]["bind"]((""+"".matchAll("")))))()(""))[0]))[1]

[kamil-kielczewski]

This comment is for shortest possible decoder case

// step 0
Function("eval('"+"91419154914591629164950961951".split("9").join("\\")+"')")()

// step 1
Function("eval"+([]["flat"]+"")[13]+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+"91419154914591629164950961951".split("9").join("\\")+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+([0]+false+[]["flat"])[20])()

// step 2
Function("eval"+([]["flat"]+"")[13]+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+"91419154914591629164950961951".split("9").join("\\")+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+([0]+false+[]["flat"])[20])()

// step 3
[]["flat"]["constructor"]("eval"+([]["flat"]+"")[13]+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+"91419154914591629164950961951"["split"]("9")["join"]("\\")+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+([0]+![]+[]["flat"])[20])()

// step 4
[]["flat"]["constructor"]("eval"+([]["flat"]+[])[[+!+[]]+[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]]+([]+[])["fontcolor"]()[[+!+[]]+[!+[]+!+[]]]+("91419154914591629164950961951")["split"]([!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+[])["join"]("\\")+([]+[])["fontcolor"]()[[+!+[]]+[!+[]+!+[]]]+([+[]]+![]+[]["flat"])[[!+[]+!+[]]+[+[]]])()

Decoder pure jsf size: 6605 char

1. TOSO: check this:

Function(Function("return "+("")["fontcolor"]()[12]+"91419154914591629164950961951".split("9").join("\\")+("")["fontcolor"]()[12])())()

UPDATE: i check above function here - we have 5783 char (so using eval is longer)