OT: Language for the ages

[Gordon JC Pearce]

Fred Cisin wrote:
>>>Actually, I AGREE with those size recommendations.
>>>I LIKE having 8 bit chars, 16 bit ints, 32 bit longs;
>>>but there are some bizarre vintage implementations out there,
>>>and on the old stuff, you can not count on a specific size.
>>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> 
>>But only because the hardware you're used to using C on suits these sizes.
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right.
> I like those sizes, because they're a good fit with my hardware.

... therefore using an 18-bit int would be silly.  If you were using a 
machine with a 9-bit byte length (not parity, actually 9 bits) then it 
wouldn't seem such a bad idea.

Gordon.