Sujet : Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)
De : janis_papanagnou+ng (at) *nospam* hotmail.com (Janis Papanagnou)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 26. Mar 2025, 15:22:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vs12k0$1ujqo$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
On 26.03.2025 11:10, David Brown wrote:
On 25/03/2025 19:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
[...]
OK, let's say 40 years ago. But even by 1975, it was clear that 8-bit
groupings were already dominant and other sizes were only going to see
usage in niche devices or for compatibility with existing older designs.
Yes, back these days 8 bit bases were prevalent. - The point of my
post was that it's problematic if you use ambiguous, suboptimal
terminology. While 8 bit Bytes were common a definition that since
then a "Byte" would be only 8 bit would just (and also did) create
confusion. That's why the 'octet' was instead used in international
standards. A similar thing was the kilo and mega unit scalers. How
long did it last until the "kibi" were introduced to disambiguate
KB, MB, etc. The problem was the huge group of newbies ("experts")
who didn't see the issues.
Janis
[...]