Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5133
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.unit0.net!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.fr7!fx43.am4.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64-bit bytes |
| References | <1d1b426e-452d-43ac-a15d-31dff9833370@googlegroups.com> <a19e7c48-06e8-4b66-8faf-e7f4b92af0a9@googlegroups.com> <442bffa5-0e87-4924-a8e2-19dc69236183@googlegroups.com> <07379e64-43df-4e01-9506-fee7d5f56c80@googlegroups.com> <GCEsw.973563$CW3.557830@fx07.am4> <98fc37e8-b786-4f52-8524-6d692c35f916@googlegroups.com> <ckMsw.1258654$u67.1004769@fx08.am4> <374f87c5-3ba9-48c3-8445-8ba4ab6af507@googlegroups.com> <fcRsw.841985$kK3.398507@fx10.am4> <87vbkbqy3i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9U_sw.1719$i7.620@fx20.am4> <87ppain71y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Zu9tw.854$gq5.687@fx46.am4> <d71a2c8e-b095-4a64-82b1-6a839bb0b2b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In-Reply-To | <d71a2c8e-b095-4a64-82b1-6a839bb0b2b6@googlegroups.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Lines | 26 |
| Message-ID | <1Vbtw.2681$551.92@fx43.am4> (permalink) |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 92.239.254.134 |
| X-Complaints-To | http://netreport.virginmedia.com |
| X-Trace | 1421167293 92.239.254.134 (Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:41:33 UTC) |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:41:33 UTC |
| Organization | virginmedia.com |
| Date | Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:41:32 +0000 |
| X-Received-Body-CRC | 945441697 |
| X-Received-Bytes | 2320 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming:5133 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 13/01/2015 14:33, fir wrote: > in present world byte seem to me be a byte obsolete > i would tend tu use yet other personal definition that this that come from ram storage granularity: more like portions of bits that are glued together; Ram can be as narrow small as you like, even 1-bit. (I've used 4-bit and 6-bits myself, although the latter was to save c. $10 on the extra 2 x 1Kbit chips which I didn't need.) > for example i can imagine some bytecode > where virtual machine uses two kinds of bytes > for example 6-bita and 23-bits, why no > I could even imagine other machine that uses > 1-bit bytes or whole variety of bytes, why no > So i could use byte name for any size of that, > you would have small bytes large bytes Why you do have to make it confusing for 99.9% of people by adopting such an odd-ball definition of 'byte'? Why not invent a new term? -- Bartc
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:38 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 00:46 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-08 00:53 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 15:46 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 00:32 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 01:35 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 09:07 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 11:43 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 11:59 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 12:21 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org> - 2015-01-12 12:36 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-12 14:15 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 14:34 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 16:35 +0100
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 17:42 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 19:11 +0100
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 19:18 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 21:34 +0100
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 22:01 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 00:51 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 13:18 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 14:16 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 14:48 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 15:05 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 64-bit bytes Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-12 21:05 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 22:12 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 20:56 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 09:19 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 06:22 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 14:51 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 15:46 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 01:16 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-13 01:53 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 13:28 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-13 13:57 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-13 15:32 +0100
Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:33 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-13 16:41 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 15:25 -0800
Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-13 23:49 +0000
Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 23:57 -0800
csiph-web