Re: 64-bit bytes

From	Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid>
Organization	Go, ion artisan!
Subject	Re: 64-bit bytes
Newsgroups	comp.programming
References	(7 earlier) <srOsw.570775$9b1.159484@fx05.am4> <RGOsw.496550$lM6.489669@fx22.am4> <y%Osw.742376$MH.437411@fx12.am4> <gQPsw.528585$gZ6.162597@fx40.am4> <mHQsw.502065$fX6.163191@fx26.am4>
Message-ID	<D8Rsw.561175$812.167923@fx20.am4> (permalink)
Date	2015-01-12 14:48 +0000

Show all headers | View raw

BartC wrote:

> On 12/01/2015 13:18, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> BartC wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2015 11:59, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
>>>> and (b) hampers our ability to describe alternative computer
>>>> architectures. What advantage does this restriction give us that
>>>> compensates for the loss of flexibility?
>>>
>>> We already have 'word' for that,
>>
>> For a great many people, 'word' means exactly 16 bits (because that's how
>> Windows uses the term). So no, we don't already have 'word' for that.
> 
> Huh? Now you're using the same argument for 'word' as I'm using for
> 'byte', and with much less justification.

Actually, it's with the same justification - i.e. not very much. It is 
indeed a weak argument, QED.

> For those who are technical, 'word' generally relates to the bit-width
> of a particular machine, and know it might currently be 8, 16, 32 or 64
> bits, that in the past it could have been anything, and in the future
> could also vary. It certainly isn't taken to mean exactly 16-bits
> outside of a specific context.
> 
> For the general public, 'word' means just means a word of a natural
> language.

And where does MS fit into that scheme? For them, 'word' means 16 bits. So 
are MS people technical or not?

> Everyone however will have an idea what a 'byte' is.

Most people I know haven't got a clue what a byte is.

> 
>>> where you generally need to qualify its
>>> size, outside of a specific context such as a language.
>>>
>>> (In the languages I create, a 'word' type was 16 bits, up to around
>>> 2002. Then it was upgraded to 32 bits (but is unlikely to be upgraded
>>> again to 64). A 'byte' type however has always been 8 bits.)
>>
>> So your word is now twice as wide as the MS word. You don't seem to have
>> a problem with this. Neither do I. But then, I don't have a problem with
>> bytes being wider than 8 bits, either.
> 
> I don't care about how MS defines their words (and anyway it's 'WORD';

I thought you said you didn't care, so it's odd that you pick this 
particular nit. To out-pick it, however, I'll just point out that WORD is 
the way they spell the type in their programming language implementations, 
and 'word' is the concept that they are describing with that spelling. For 
them, 'word' means 16 bits. For other people (such as you and me), a more 
flexible definition is considered more appropriate.

> you should know that this is a macro that need not be the same as
> 'word'. BTW in MS' C# language, 'byte' is an 8-bit wide type.).

Is it, then, your claim that MS don't consider words to be exactly 16 bits 
wide?

> 
> I'm using 'word' in the private context of a programming language and
> means whatever I define it as.

Shades of Humpty Dumpty.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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