Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:6745 comp.sys.m68k:685
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!umd5!umbc3!alex
From: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: C machine
Message-ID: <728@umbc3.UMD.EDU>
Date: 20 Jan 88 09:11:41 GMT
References: <461@auvax.UUCP> <9961@mimsy.UUCP> <166@teletron.UUCP> <6936@brl-smoke.ARPA> <147@ateng.UUCP> <39aca826.7f32@apollo.uucp> <7092@brl-smoke.ARPA> <708@umbc3.UMD.EDU> <7109@brl-smoke.ARPA> <712@umbc3.UMD.EDU> <155@ateng.UUCP>
Reply-To: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Lines: 32

In article <155@ateng.UUCP> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
	[lots of stuff, and...]
>Repeat after me:  "Not all C programs run on 32-bit architectures."

	Correct. And I like the idea of a compiler that allows switchable
default int sizes, BUT...

	I still prefer 32 default ints to 16. Why? 
	1) because I do alot of stuff that wont fit in 16 bits.
	2) because of the way I write code, ie:
		a) block the project into little pieces.
		b) make each little piece work.
		c) rough tune the entire project.
		d) fine tune the little pieces.

There's more too it than that, but the order is about right. I've found
that no amount of preplaning will allow for the great idea that I get a 
4:45am 3 weeks into the project, and I don't want to be screwing around 
with size errors while I'm adding in what ever it is that I've forgotten.
Ie: I want the program to work now, it can work well later, if I have time.

	All in all, its a matter of preference. My code uses alot of
short ints, and thats fine with me. And I havn't heard any real good
reasons why ints should be 16 bits besides programmer preference. I've
gotten to the point where I prototype everything anyway, and I always
cruise through the final product looking for dead variables, etc, 
and scale everything down then. 

-- 
					:alex.

alex@umbc3.umd.edu