[self-interest] Unlimited integer arithmetics?

Dru Nelson dru at redwoodsoft.com
Thu Aug 22 23:21:17 UTC 2002

> > IPv6 8 bytes (it's 128 bits of address).
> Sorry, eight bytes then.  (128 bits is 16 bytes, btw).

Yeah, that was wishfull thinking on my part. It is 128 bits.
Now, 6 bytes will be taken by the MAC address of the computer
that is using that address.

> So this is the point.  The claim was "nobody could want integers
> bigger than 64 bits".

Well, for the most part, most people don't need more than the
32 bits and 80 bits for floats that we have.
I don't mind a definition of a larger integer standard, but
computer architecture doesn't really prohibit you from using
larger integers that you build yourself.

> Universal addressing is a very nifty idea, and the whole *point* of it

I think that large address spaces or what used to?? be referred to
as distributed shared memory is ok, not against that.

> is to not have extra layers of addressing.  (Unix having *two* layers
> of time addressing, for example, totally sucks.  Why should I have
> "seconds" and "microseconds"?  And then, now, for some interfaces, you
> have seconds and nanoseconds.  Blech blech blech.)

When unix was written, they weren't that concerned about things like
that. So they extended it and tried to maintain compatability.

> Having another layer simply means that when you need to address
> something bigger than 64 bits, you split it up into two integers.  Why
> not skip that step and allow large integers directly?

Sounds find, you should lobby the committee that defines C
standards to make a 'really long long'...

Self, Smalltalk, etc... they don't have this problem.

More information about the Self-interest mailing list