Subject: Re: Re: long long vs long
From: [email-masked]

24 Jul 1998 22:44:41 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

In a message dated 7/24/98 1:24:02 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

>Octal makes sense in an environment with
>word sizes of multiples of 3 bits. Hex is only useful with multiples of 4
>bits.

I found hex useful on 36-bit word machines like GE600/Honeywell6000 where
floating point sub-fields were aligned on 4-bit boundaries, but of course
characters were aligned either on 6-bit or 9-bit boundaries.  It wasn't
difficult to have hex display software recognize patterns which made more
sense in character or octal.  So why did octal persist so long on 16/32 bit
machines?

>The IBM 360 was 36 bits.

The  704 and 7094 were 36 bits, as were some would-be competitors of the 360.
These competitors apparently believed, mistakenly, that IBM customers would
switch brands rather than switch word lengths, and that the superiority of
36-bit binary floating point over 360-style 32-bit hex would carry the day.
As it turned out, of course, prices of 32-bit memory dropped so fast that
64-bit double precision was more affordable than 36-bit single with extended
registers.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".