Re: Cohen's paper on byte order
From: Francois Grieu (fgrieu@micronet.fr)
Date: 03/31/03
- Previous message: Charles Richmond: "Re: Extending 5-level code"
- In reply to: David Hopwood: "Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Francois Grieu <fgrieu@micronet.fr> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:12:43 +0200
In article <3E861901.C7D01169@zetnet.co.uk>,
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> When identifying bits in the binary representation of an integer, there
> are clear advantages to identifying the bit with weight 2^k as bit
> number k (independent of byte or bit order). I don't see why this would
> be dependent on the purpose at hand. An integer is an integer, whatever
> it is being used for.
I'm unsure if this contradicts the above, but when the purpose at hand is
representing a physical quantity with a serialy transmitted number, there
is a clear advantage to making available the most significant bit first:
one is able to make a faster and simpler conversion from and to the
physical world. A Big Endian is able to adjust a physical quantity
towards a number while the number is being received. I know no other case
where the Big Endian clearly wins, but still this is an important one.
And I believe this has to do with why virtually all number representation
systems developped by early human societies are Big Endians.
Francois Grieu
- Previous message: Charles Richmond: "Re: Extending 5-level code"
- In reply to: David Hopwood: "Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
