Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #5047 > unrolled thread

64-bit bytes

Started byfir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>
First post2015-01-05 01:38 -0800
Last post2015-01-13 23:57 -0800
Articles 3 on this page of 43 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  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

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#5139

Fromfir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>
Date2015-01-13 15:25 -0800
Message-ID<bd73880e-1ec0-4196-a1bd-f2402f5e3f02@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5133
W dniu wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 17:41:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> 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?
> 
seem to me be a good generalisation of byte,
narrow byte may be a bit obsolete but this generalisation could live longer, and seem 
(at least moderately) natural

indeed you could have variable zize cells in ram chips, say adressable by natural numbers
but varying in lengths

not 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
but 2 10 22 3 44 5 66 7 

this is imaginable, though maybe more suited to rom than ram, (well at least when imagine resizable bytes, like bubbles of air)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5140

FromBartC <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2015-01-13 23:49 +0000
Message-ID<_9itw.26096$El2.24633@fx04.am4>
In reply to#5139
On 13/01/2015 23:25, fir wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 17:41:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:

>> 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?
>>
> seem to me be a good generalisation of byte,
> narrow byte may be a bit obsolete but this generalisation could live longer, and seem
> (at least moderately) natural

OK, so you are going to make it impossible for someone to talk about 
bytes without also having to always say how wide they are? (And it 
sounds like you will have mixed byte-widths within the same system.)

That's not progress.

> indeed you could have variable zize cells in ram chips, say adressable by natural numbers
> but varying in lengths
>
> not 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
> but 2 10 22 3 44 5 66 7
>
> this is imaginable, though maybe more suited to rom than ram, (well at least when imagine resizable bytes, like bubbles of air)

I suspect you have no idea how modern memory accesses work. Nor even how 
it worked in the past (have you ever programmed a ROM?).

Perhaps that ancient Burroughs machine that was mentioned will suit you 
more, that could access memory with variable widths. But we've moved on 
from that for good reasons.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5142

Fromfir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>
Date2015-01-13 23:57 -0800
Message-ID<c84d74ab-e519-4a1a-914d-61224655d62c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5140
W dniu środa, 14 stycznia 2015 00:49:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> On 13/01/2015 23:25, fir wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 17:41:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> 
> >> 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?
> >>
> > seem to me be a good generalisation of byte,
> > narrow byte may be a bit obsolete but this generalisation could live longer, and seem
> > (at least moderately) natural
> 
> OK, so you are going to make it impossible for someone to talk about 
> bytes without also having to always say how wide they are? (And it 
> sounds like you will have mixed byte-widths within the same system.)
> 
> That's not progress.
> 
> > indeed you could have variable zize cells in ram chips, say adressable by natural numbers
> > but varying in lengths
> >
> > not 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
> > but 2 10 22 3 44 5 66 7
> >
> > this is imaginable, though maybe more suited to rom than ram, (well at least when imagine resizable bytes, like bubbles of air)
> 
> I suspect you have no idea how modern memory accesses work. Nor even how 
> it worked in the past (have you ever programmed a ROM?).
> 
> Perhaps that ancient Burroughs machine that was mentioned will suit you 
> more, that could access memory with variable widths. But we've moved on 
> from that for good reasons.
> 
probably in physical systems it would be
not practical, fixed 32-bit byte seem roughly ok, (when we talking about ram)
though set of working registers in x64 which are variable bit size still could be used maybe
- such would be some internal 'reflection' of variable bytes system
(as to ram it could be done or at leas tested in some virtual machines)

(fir)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web