Re: 64-bit bytes

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: 64-bit bytes
Date	2015-01-13 13:28 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87ppain71y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <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>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

>> In my experience
>> the term has always referred to an aggregate of multiple bits (usually
>> enough to store some system-dependent idea of a character).
>
> I'd agree with that, if "multiple" can mean "one or more".

Well that's key.  You suggest here that your experience includes a use
I've never come across.  Are you using the term "my experience" to
include your experience of your own private meaning?

>>> (And yes, there are such machines. I
>>> designed a virtual machine with 1-bit bytes. I wrote four programs for
>>> it, three of which were rather dull.
>> 
>> 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.

The Burroughs machines could address any arbitrary unit of store from
zero to 24 bits.  Calling a byte zero bits would stretch even your
definition, so that widely chose to use byte in a more conventional
way.

> Like all disputes about terminology, this one will run for as long as we 
> have the patience for it.

Why?  I just wanted to know if this is your own private usage.  If it's
more widely held than that, I'd like to know who by because I like to
know how words are used by various communities.  There does not need to
be any dispute.

-- 
Ben.

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