A lot of smoke here, but very little light. What this article fails to capture is the fundamental question that is faced any time a new architecture is encount

A lot of smoke here, but very little light. What this article fails to capture is the fundamental question that is faced any time a new architecture is encountered: should 'int' be sized (number of bits) according to its original (or most recent) de-facto definition? Or should it be sized according to the natural register size of the architecture's general-purpose registers? A lot of us went through this back in the mid-2000's when AMD64 (x86_64) came out. It took both Microsoft and the Linux crowd (just to name two communities) time to come up with their respective (and incompatible) translaitons of types. The top answer to this StackOverflow question summarizes this well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384502/what-is-the-bit-size-of-long-on-64-bit-windows https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384502/what-is-the-bit-s... In the gaming industry, we came up with our own typedefs until the standards caught up. Things like int_8, int_64, etc. I say only a fool would ever use somehting as pretentious a concept as 'intmax_t' in normal code (which isn't a tranlation table of typedefs based on platform). "max" according to whom? That is not the way.