OT: Language for the ages

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Re: OT: Language for the ages
>   From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
>   Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:48:32 -0600
>     To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Strange -- my hardware is just like that ( When I get it finshed ) .  
>The PDP-10 has done that already.
>Oddly this homebrew I am working can't do real C, since now C is almost 
>allways 32 bit code and
>I've got only a whoopping 64kb of ram. :(    I think a 20 bit int is 
>also a nice size too and 10 bit bytes.
>
>>
>> Gordon.

CDC6000 or was it the Interdata 8/32 used a nine bit char.

Funny thing about all this.  I see focus on the char, int and longs and 
pointers with little regard to is the machine Von or Harvard and other 
considerations such as base machine registers, addressing modes and 
conditional branch capabilities. All that is needed is enough bits 
to do the task(s) desired.  There is a point where standard C doesnt 
fit well enough to justify it.  That doesnt negate a subset however.


Allison