scott wrote:

> That's not a very good argument.
> 
> It just seems way more natural if you are writing any sort of processing 
> with bits/bytes etc that array index zero should be the LSB.

...and this *is* a good argument??



Think about it. If you store the textural representation of a number in 
ASCII, the most significant digit comes first. But if Intel has their 
way, the most significant byte comes... last? And if you have to split a 
large number into several machine words, unless you number those words 
backwards, you get monstrosities such as

   04 03 02 01 08 07 06 05 0C 0B 0A 09

instead of

   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C

as it should be.

There's no two ways about it. Little endian = backwards.

Post a reply to this message