Re: The joy of FORTRAN

On 28/02/2025 14:19, Scott Lurndal wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

On 2/26/25 7:22 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:47:15 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

>

The idea of defining different-sized bytes is a real plus.

>

What they meant by "bytes" was really just "bitfields".

>
Look up the original definition of "byte" in the signal processing literature,
and you'll find that "arbitrary bitfield" is the original meaning, dude.
>
The restriction of "byte" to "bitfield of a particular size for the manufacturer's
architecture, especially 8 bits" is the odd choice.

>
   8 bits kinda emerged with microprocessors.

 Surely the IBM 360 was responsible for the popularity
of 8-bit bytes - and that drove the adoption by other
computer manufacturers if only to support common I/O
peripherals.

There was a convergence from on one side 5 bit baudot codes used by teleprinters and much longer words used in mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code
Commercial computers needed to be able to print and the 7-8 bit ASCII codes seemed a good reason to go for 8 bit peripherals, at least. It was also an effective way to manage in-memory text.
Also banks needed to do integer arithmetic and a trillion dollars is 42 bits even without cents etc.
So lots of conflicting requirements even before the ability to access shitloads of by then cheap RAM came along
Designing a CPU in TTL was not a trivial task...back in the 1960s
--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.