🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov2.195519.612@netcom.com> abell@netcom.com (Steven T.  
Abell) writes:
> eboltz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric Scott Boltz) writes:
> 
> > As far as Intel CPUs go, aren't they the ones that expect multiple-byte
> > data to have bytes swaped? - Yuck.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, nobody has *ever* made a machine that got  
byte-ordering
> right in combination with several other crucial factors. This has had an
> unpleasant effect on sofware quality.
[munch]
> 
> The design I suggest is very different from what we're used to, but it  
works
> just as well in the machine, and better in our heads when we're writing
> programs. That translates into fewer bugs.
> 
> 0) All memory diagrams are written sideways,
>    with the most-significant bit, byte, word, whatever, on the left.
> 
> 1) The base address of a string, struct, array is its *end*, not its  
beginning.

Unfortunately, many string operations (formatting strings, strcat, etc) will  
grow the length of the string, and we than have to copy the entire string to  
a buffer, operate on it, then put it back with its end in the right place.    
Sigh......


> Yes, I know, it's weird, but only because *everybody* got it wrong,
> and that's what we've become accustomed to. Yuck.
> 
> Steve abell@netcom.com