home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: user2.mnsinc.com!huang
- From: huang@mnsinc.com (Szu-Wen Huang)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: 16bit vs. 32bit
- Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:20:23 GMT
- Organization: Monumental Network Systems
- Message-ID: <4juq2n$s35@news1.mnsinc.com>
- References: <315845E6.64FC@oc.com> <315BD1FA.2B34@cmt.lpr.mail.carel.fi> <315C1210.5621@oc.com> <DpAvC8.HD4@eskimo.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: user2.mnsinc.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Steve Summit (scs@eskimo.com) wrote:
- : In article <315C1210.5621@oc.com>, Larry Weiss <lfw@oc.com> writes:
-
- :>>Yeah. Maybe it was the guy who wrote the program in a 32-bit Unix machine
- :>>seven years back that stores data in binary format to a file you now have to
- :>>read in a 16-bit DOS machine?
-
- :>And, how did that programmer "screw up" ?
-
- :By choosing a binary data file format, and condemning later
- :programmers to use machine-dependent code if they wished to read
- :it efficiently.
-
- Uhm, beware when you judge happenstances of another time. The old
- programmer could've been incredibly wise in saving *precious* disk
- and memory space by using binary formats instead of text. Seven
- years ago would be around the time I bought a 30 MB hard disk for
- around $450.
-
- Along the same thought, I can easily imagine a programmer a few
- years from now cursing us all for choosing a dumb 7-bit representation
- to transmit data on. "Geez, it can't even be used to store Chinese!"
-