Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Seems a bad idea to force the overhead of that, but it should
>> definitely be available as an option. Contrary to what Walter and
>> Andrei seem to think, 32-bit systems are still very much alive and
>> will be for quite awhile longer. Especially when you remember that
>> there are more computers out there than just desktops and servers.
>> (Ex: When is a phone ever going to need 64-bit? Eventually maybe, but
>> certainly not anytime soon.)
>
> 16 bit processors died around 15 years after the introduction of 32 bit
> ones, even for embedded systems. If history repeats itself, figure 32
> bit ones have about 5 years to go!
>
Funny thing is we still use some 8-bit microcontrollers in some
situations :) But you're right, as soon as we need something more we
go directly to 32 bits without stopping in the 16 bits square.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
