Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: On 2008 May 13, at 17:12, Andrew Coppin wrote: [Oh GOD I hope I didn't just start a Holy War...] Er, I'd say it's already well in progress. :/ Oh dear. Appologies to everybody who doesn't actually _care_ about which endian mode their computer uses... ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I used to be a big-endian advocate, on the principle that it doesn't really matter, and it was standard network byte order. Now I'm convinced that little endian is the way to go I guess it depends a lot on what you grew up with. The names (little/big endian) are incredibly apt. The only argument I can come up with, is that big endian seems to make more sense for 'od': % echo foobar foo % od -x foo 000 6f66 626f 7261 000a 007 Since this is little endian, the output corresponds to of bo ra \0\n. So I guess the argument is that for big-endian, the concatenation of hex numbers is invariant with respect to word sizes? -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
On Tue 2008-05-13 20:46, Ketil Malde wrote: Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess it depends a lot on what you grew up with. The names (little/big endian) are incredibly apt. The only argument I can come up with, is that big endian seems to make more sense for 'od': % echo foobar foo % od -x foo 000 6f66 626f 7261 000a 007 This, of course, is because `od -x' regards the input as 16-bit integers. We can get saner output if we regard it is 8-bit integers. $ od -t x1 foo 000 66 6f 6f 62 61 72 0a 007 Now I'm convinced that little endian is the way to go, as bit number n should have value 2^n, byte number n should have value 256^n, and so forth. It's not that simple with bits. They lack consistency just like the usual US date format and the way Germans read numbers. Jed pgphk5bR3rQBd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
Jed Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, of course, is because `od -x' regards the input as 16-bit integers. We can get saner output if we regard it is 8-bit integers. Yes, of course. The point was that for big-endian, the word size won't matter. Little-endian words will be reversed with respect to the normal (left-to-right, most significant first) way we print numbers. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
Aaron Denney wrote: On 2008-05-12, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Stupid little-endian nonsense... mutter mutter...) I used to be a big-endian advocate, on the principle that it doesn't really matter, and it was standard network byte order. Now I'm convinced that little endian is the way to go, as bit number n should have value 2^n, byte number n should have value 256^n, and so forth. Yes, in human to human communication there is value in having the most significant bit first. Not really true for computer-to-computer communication. It just annoys me that the number 0x12345678 has to be transmuted into 0x78563412 just because Intel says so. Why make everything so complicated? [Oh GOD I hope I didn't just start a Holy War...] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess (was Re: GHC predictability)
Also, the way we write numbers is little endian when writing in Arabic; we just forgot to reverse the digits when we borrowed the notation. Little endian is more logical unless you also number your bits with MSB as bit 0. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-05-12, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Stupid little-endian nonsense... mutter mutter...) I used to be a big-endian advocate, on the principle that it doesn't really matter, and it was standard network byte order. Now I'm convinced that little endian is the way to go, as bit number n should have value 2^n, byte number n should have value 256^n, and so forth. Yes, in human to human communication there is value in having the most significant bit first. Not really true for computer-to-computer communication. -- Aaron Denney -- ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Endianess
On 2008 May 13, at 17:12, Andrew Coppin wrote: [Oh GOD I hope I didn't just start a Holy War...] Er, I'd say it's already well in progress. :/ -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
