stax VS 05AB1E

In my golf language, called stax, each program expressible in plain ASCII has a corresponding representation in a single byte character set. [0] The only reason a program wouldn't start in plain ASCII is the contents of string literals.

The alternate representation generally saves ~15%, as measured in bytes. However, I totally understand the argument about human-unreadable "golfed" code, which is why you can always use the plain ASCII representation if you want.

[0] https://github.com/tomtheisen/stax/blob/master/docs/packed.m...

l'05AB1E pour faire du golf

At least on the Code Golf Stack Exchange, I see a lot of people using esolangs for golfing (two random examples: Jelly [1] and O5AB1E [2]). I expect that it could be a line or two shorter at least with a change of language. As I recall some of the golfing langs also have pretty sophisticated compression techniques for strings, although they might be optimized for dictionary words. Careful distinction: they are all optimizing for bytes used, not characters used.

I don't want to neglect your shameless plug, but I struggle enough to find a solution to some of the puzzles I wrote (hence the undo), so finding the shortest path is a little daunting.

[1] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage

[2] https://github.com/Adriandmen/05AB1E

So, like 05AB1E? :D