3 ms·
Little endian won. I don't see the point of maintaining theoretical compatibility with big endian systems that are at best esoteric right now and soon to be ext
by quotemstr 4y ago
Little endian won. I don't see the point of maintaining theoretical compatibility with big endian systems that are at best esoteric right now and soon to be extinct. Likewise, every reasonable platform aligns data fields on natural alignment these days. It's just a waste of effort to make software portable to evolutionary dead ends.
- wolverine876 4y agoYou're saying it won for this application (UUIDs)? Universally? What is the most common remaining use of big endian?
- tech2 4y agoTCP/IP might be a reasonable example. There's a reason "network byte order" and "big endian" are the same thing.
- wolverine876 4y ago> TCP/IP might be a reasonable example. That's a pretty significant example of widespread usage that isn't going away soon. Perhaps the GGP was only referring to UUID applications.
- mort96 4y agoThis isn't about compatibility with big-endian machines. This is about compatibility between different uuid libraries, potentially on different operating systems, all on little endian CPU architectures.
- ntauthority 4y agoEvery existing library follows the standard which specifies host byte order, which usually means little endian. The Rust library cited a few levels up this chain ignored that, somehow assuming big endian, and then had to correct for this mistake.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]