🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16294@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, wally@Auspex.COM (Wally Bass) writes:
> In article <willmore.726511292@help.cc.iastate.edu> willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore) writes:
> Given that Intel x86 started as narrow data flow stuff, it's
> not surprising that it ended up with low-byte-first.

It's quite interesting that Intel did get it right on one (and only one, I
think) of their chips. I can't remember the number of it, but I think it was 
before the 8080, and I don' think it was a 4004 or 8008, but could be wrong,
but one of their chips was big-endian - then they changed their minds - was it
an 8051 or something like that.

Little endian sucks if you're an assembly freak (such as I was for many years)
an you look at memory dumps for multi-byte values like addresses, the nibbles
are all in the wrong order:-

	Big Endian	: $1234
	Little Endian	: $3412

At least it'd be easier if little endian had the bits the right way round - but
thats only a concept, so on a little endian machine I could look for:-

     $4321, yes bizarre idea, and just as well no one ever did it!

but searching for $3412 when I want address $1234 is painful to say the least.
No I program in C and Modula 2, so it isn't really a problem for me anymore.

That $ just brought another thing in, I hate Intel syntax.

	$65 is better than 65H because I know it's hex before I read it.
	$A is better than 0AH because AH is illegal, and I know it's hex before
           I read it, and I don't need a leading zero to make it legal.

	Same goes for binary %00010001 as against 00010001B

        I can't remember the Octal syntax, but ....

Yes, I'm just a Mostek/Motorola junkie.

Looks good on the outside, but
     Intel inside.
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.