Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The D Programming Language
Message-ID: <1988Mar3.184403.1060@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> 
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 88 18:44:03 GMT

>>Most machines cannot handle bits with anywhere near the efficiency
>>with which they handle bytes; the appropriate base unit for efficient code
>>*is* the byte.
>
>"Word-addressible cannot handle bytes with anywhere near the efficiency
>with which they handle words; the appropriate base unit for efficient code
>is the word."  Right?

See Bliss and BCPL, which were built for word-addressed machines.  The fact
is that C assumes a byte-addressible machine.  It has been ported to word-
addressed machines; this involves problems, and C programs are sometimes
quite inefficient on such machines, but it does work.  Basing C on bytes
was probably the right thing to do (even ignoring the fact that portability
originally wasn't a big consideration), because most modern machines support
them well.  I question the wisdom of basing a new portable general-purpose
language on the bit, which very few existing machines support well.
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly.    | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry