Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!rbj@icst-cmr From: rbj%icst-cmr@smoke.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: weird C behavior Message-ID: <2373@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Fri, 4-Apr-86 17:15:47 EST Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2373 Posted: Fri Apr 4 17:15:47 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Apr-86 07:45:52 EST Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA Lines: 20 Bill Crews writes: The only reason you got -28672 for BIG instead of nulls is because your machine has backwards byte order. Sorry Bill, *you're* the one that's got backwards byte order. Little Endian is `correct', even tho bucking historical convention. My reasoning is this: The original byte ordering was done the obvious way, Big Endian. If this was so perfect, why would a sane man design anything Little Endian? For compelling mathematical reasons! You wouldn't number your bits backwards (within a register) would you? Admittedly, some people do, but they must not know any better. I admit this causes some headaches because of our historical biases. Unfortunately, this means I side with Intel and against Motorola on this, but it just goes to show a company can't be all right or all wrong. Like National goofed & called `longs' `doubles' & vice versa! (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell