|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>
>> 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
>
> That only happens if, for some obscure reason, you try to interpret a
> /character sequence/ as an integer value. Which it isn't.
>
> Directly interpreting ASCII representations of numbers is made
> problematic in multiple ways anyway:
I'm not talking about storing numbers as ASCII. I'm talking about
storing a number such as 0x0102030405060708090A0C0B. Any sane person
would store 0x01, followed by 0x02, followed by 0x03, and so on. But
Intel and a few like them have decided to instead muddle up the ordering.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |