I find it somewhat telling that they don't benchmark themselves against zstd.
Right now I'm almost exclusively using zstd (general stuff) or lzma2/xz (high compression where read speed doesn't matter). And of course gz and zip for data interchange where compatibility is key. From the information presented bzip3 won't replace any of those use cases for me, but that's fine. Maybe it fits somebody else's use case, or maybe it's the foundation for the next great algorithm that we all end up using.
Have you ever tried lzma/lzma2 with the hc3 (hash chain) match finder instead of the default (bt3 or bt4) match finder? I've found this to be a really good middle ground between gz/deflate and lzma2 with default settings.
Yes, because someone said the same when zstandard came out. This may not have the same strong points, but maybe the next will… compression is not a completed task.
gzip has BSD-licensed compatible alternatives already. It's doubtful the same attention would be given to bzip3; chicken-and-egg scenario there. Plus the lingering question of "Why not zstd?"
In what way is bzip2 more of a "standard" than zstd? bzip2 doesn't even seem to have any official reference description of its file format; just an "unofficial" one[1], whereas zstd is RFC 8478[2].
When I evaluated various compression algorithms a few years ago zstd came ahead of bzip2 in every metric.
Right now I'm almost exclusively using zstd (general stuff) or lzma2/xz (high compression where read speed doesn't matter). And of course gz and zip for data interchange where compatibility is key. From the information presented bzip3 won't replace any of those use cases for me, but that's fine. Maybe it fits somebody else's use case, or maybe it's the foundation for the next great algorithm that we all end up using.