Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5130
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Organization | Go, ion artisan! |
| Subject | Re: 64-bit bytes |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| References | (7 earlier) <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> |
| Message-ID | <Zu9tw.854$gq5.687@fx46.am4> (permalink) |
| Date | 2015-01-13 13:57 +0000 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 8:19:07 PM UTC+11, Richard Heathfield >>>>> wrote: >> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> So what would you call the smallest addressable unit of memory, then? >>>>>> That's what "byte" is supposed to mean, after all. >>>>> >>>>> No it's not. There are machines where the smallest addressable unit >>>>> of memory is the bit. >>>> >>>> On such machines, bytes are 1 bit wide. >>> >>> That's a very odd use of the term. Is it just you? >> >> Probably. But it is perfectly logical if you think of "byte" as "smallest >> addressable unit of memory". > > If that's your private definition, have at it. It may impede > communication, but the importance of that is for you to decide. Up until now, I've never thought of it as my private definition. In fact, most of the time, I don't use that definition myself, because I think of "byte" as "storage space exactly CHAR_BIT bits wide". But in the wider world outside the C and C++ languages, I think of "byte" as "smallest addressable unit of memory" not because I came up with that definition (I didn't), but because it seemed to me to be a sensible definition. I have no idea where I first read it. I have made a cursory search of my library, and found nothing to the point (Knuth is no help - and I never thought I'd write that particular phrase! - because he defines bytes in terms of how MIX thinks of them, i.e. at least 6 bits, rather than in terms of the wider world). <snip> >>> The only bit-addressed hardware I know (the famous Burroughs machines) >>> freely uses the term byte. There are 8-bits wide. >> >> Then they are using the term "byte" to mean something other than >> "smallest addressable unit of memory". > > Yes. Like everyone else in the world apart, it seems, from you. I didn't invent either the phrase or the definition - but since I am unable to produce any evidence to support my case, I will quietly fold my tents and slip away across the hot desert sands. <snip> -- 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
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