Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: "big endian" and "little endian" - first usage for computers Message-ID: <2591@ficc.uu.net> Date: 1 Jan 89 03:51:54 GMT References: <2766@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10147@well.UUCP> Organization: Xenix Support Lines: 18 In article , patterso@hardees.rutgers.edu (Ross Patterson) writes: > On the other hand, MSBF prevents the ridiculousness of performing multi-byte > arithmetic piecemeal, they way Intel 80[x]8x machines have to. It's > unnecessarily dificult to manage numbers when the bits aren't in a neat > sequence. But they are in a neat sequence. You just keep pushing bits uphill as you run through the number. It's just not the same sort of sequence you want to use if you need the other end of the number. Any sins of 80x86 machines are NOT the fault of big endianism or little endianism. Intel is quite capable of generating bugs and kludges on their own without anyone's help. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.