4 ms·
> Looks like you haven't worked on embedded systems. I've deleted a defensive technical response to point out that these dismissive assumptions (usually unjust
by mieko 10y ago
> Looks like you haven't worked on embedded systems.
I've deleted a defensive technical response to point out that these dismissive assumptions (usually unjustified) are pretty prevalent on HN, and I don't think it promotes level-headed discussion. It reads like "Let me discredit a stranger's background that I don't know, and then argue my opposing view." It creates a defensive mindset off the bat.
Edit: I mean, your points are valid. We won't agree on them, but I don't like the assumption that we won't agree because I'm ignorant to them.
- wott 10y agoYou shouldn't have worried: his points are not valid at all. Using fixed-width types across various embedded (as in "small and exotic") platforms is a nightmare for portability. There is no reason not to use standard integer types, providing you understood their definition. Use fixed-width types only when absolutely really needed; don't use standard types when you need fixed-width width, assuming they will be an exact size, and everything will be fine.