Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Supercomputer Unix decisions (really type sizes)
Message-ID: <12670@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 14-Jun-87 03:39:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.12670
Posted: Sun Jun 14 03:39:04 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jun-87 19:43:13 EDT
References: <3659@spool.WISC.EDU> <743@geac.UUCP> <4679@columbia.UUCP> <420@elxsi.UUCP> <1124@copper.TEK.COM>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 16

Unfortunately in C (as most other languages) there is no distinction
between how you describe variables to be used within your program and
how you describe external objects.  The result is that network code
and code that handles records on tapes, etc., is full of descriptions 
that use char, short and long, to refer to 8, 16, and 32 bit
quantities.  Frankly I think this is a mistake.  I think we should
have a separate way of declaring external objects that is independent
of the machine's byte order, word size, etc.  But at the moment there
isn't much choice.  Those of us who write portable code have gotten
used to the fact that you can't be sure of the size of int and
pointers.  But if we are to have any hope of writing portable network
code, there has to be some way to say that something is a 16 or 32
bit object.  Currently short and long are it.  Anybody have a better
idea?  The only alternative I can think of is to use long:16 and
long:32.  Presumably that would continue to work if longs expanded.
But I think most people would find this impossibly ugly.