This whole argument is Byteing off more than we can Queue.


Michael D. Hensley wrote:
>
> Wirt Atmar wrote:
>
> [...most of his post snipped, in fine Usenet tradition, because it's
> irrefutable]
>
> > However, somewhere along the line, somewhere between the evolution of
> > microprocessors and the infusion of communications technology into
> > computers, the definition of a "byte" got stuck at 8-bits and a nibble at
> > four. All of this is an abomination before the Lord, a complete corruption
> > of traditional terminology, and for the traditionalist, is as sad as HP's
> > shedding its original businesses in a meager attempt to impress a few
> > stockbrokers.
>
> 8-bit values are so useful (and commonly used), and differing size "bytes"
> are so confusing, that the more "progressive" members of the congregation
> chose to assign a new, unambiguous meaning to the word "byte" -- one that
> wouldn't change at the whim of HW vendors.  I applaud this heresy.  When I
> say "byte" I mean exactly 8 bits.
>
> How the same group of people that developed a language ("C") which doesn't
> specify the sizes for any of it's types (nor provide a way to specify what
> sizes you want), started using a standard size for the word "byte" is beyond
> me.