home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.ssd.intel.com!chnews!chnews!doconnor
- From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor~)
- Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Did Microsoft decree a byte order?
- Date: 4 Jan 96 3:15:52
- Organization: Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <DOCONNOR.Jan431552@sedona.intel.com>
- References: <4b56do$c3u@sundog.tiac.net> <4b9pih$378@newshost.quickturn.com>
- <4c80dp$9du@hobbes.sco.COM> <DKIp84.9Az@calcite.rhyolite.com>
- <jgkDKMn2x.2KA@netcom.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sawblade.ch.intel.com
- In-reply-to: Joe Keane's message of Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:42:33 GMT
-
-
- Joe Keane <jgk@netcom.com> writes:
- ] In article <DKIp84.9Az@calcite.rhyolite.com>
- ] Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> writes:
- ] >[ on why application code is byte-order sensitive ]
- ]
- ] Sorry, but this is baloney. The real reasons are ignorance and laziness.
- ] The other reasons are good excuses but they don't hold up under scrutiny.
- ]
- ] At some point, or maybe not, the light goes on in a programmer's head, that
- ] read and write operate on *bytes* and maybe you should use them that way.
- ]
- ] Blasting structures directly to disk or the network is just bad practice.
-
- Yeah, there's a good use of a 64-bit wide PCI bus : sending
- bytes over it one at a time. (not) Admit it : being order-neutral is
- slower. Ask your typical customer wether they'd rather have a
- byte-order-neutral OS that runs slower, or a machine-order-dependant
- OS that runs faster, and which do you think they will buy ?
-
- [...]
- ] Saying `but it works on my machine' isn't a sign of a competent programmer.
-
- But if you can say "We have 40 million happy customers", do you care ?
- The important thing is to meet your customers needs, not to a slave
- to some esoteric aesthetic "goodness" measure.
- --
- Dennis O'Connor doconnor@sedona.intel.com
- i960(R) Architecture and Core Design Not an Intel spokesman.
- TIP#518 Fear is the enemy.
-