sjc@key.COM (Steve Correll) (08/29/90)
In article <41004@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > [Why not 48-bit processors?] >1) Software inertia strongly impels people to build machines whose >words contain 2**n bytes, for C especially, but also for other languages. In article <15249@drilex.UUCP>, dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: > I think C would be the chief offender here--few other languages expose > the characters/word ratio quite as much. INTEGER*4 I(5) DATA I / 4HDon', 4Ht fo, 4Hrget, 4HFort, 4Hran! / WRITE(6, 100) I 100 FORMAT(5A4) END -- ...{sun,pyramid}!pacbell!key!sjc Steve Correll
rcb@ccpv1.cc.ncsu.edu (Randy Buckland) (08/29/90)
sjc@key.COM (Steve Correll) writes: >In article <41004@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >> [Why not 48-bit processors?] >>1) Software inertia strongly impels people to build machines whose >>words contain 2**n bytes, for C especially, but also for other languages. >In article <15249@drilex.UUCP>, dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: >> I think C would be the chief offender here--few other languages expose >> the characters/word ratio quite as much. > INTEGER*4 I(5) > DATA I / 4HDon', 4Ht fo, 4Hrget, 4HFort, 4Hran! / > WRITE(6, 100) I >100 FORMAT(5A4) > END I try to forget Fortran (yuck!) whenever possible. The above is one of the reasons for this. -- Randy Buckland North Carolina State University randy@ncsu.edu (919) 737-2517