Xref: utzoo comp.arch:7808 comp.misc:4673 comp.lang.misc:2496 comp.protocols.misc:448
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.misc,comp.lang.misc,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: "big endian" and "little endian" - first usage for computer
Message-ID: <5658@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 06:14:39 GMT
References: <170@microsoft.UUCP> <4008@hubcap.UUCP> <482@babbage.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 21

In article <482@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) writes:
>> Actually, where most little-endian machines screw up is storing the
>> bits in the byte in the wrong order.  It is good to hear that somebody got it

>Another notational screw-up is where to put address 0 when drawing memory.  I
>always put it at the top ("up there at the bottom of memory").

	I think there are two main reasons for what appears to be more
programmers liking big-endian (no flames, local observation) and hardware
people liking little-endian are:

1)  Little-endian used to make it easier to support big integers on small-
buswidth machines (minor issue, solved or irrelevant now in general).

2)  Hardware people like to draw diagrams with 0 at bottom-right, software
people, used to printers and screens that print top to bottom, left to right,
like to put 0 at upper-left.  It also makes dumping memory with strings easier
to read.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup