4 ms·
The author of that comment was incorrect though. Page 18 of the PDF shows that it was an arbitrarily hardcoded number encoded in a BigDecimal, has nothing to do
by Kranar 4y ago
The author of that comment was incorrect though. Page 18 of the PDF shows that it was an arbitrarily hardcoded number encoded in a BigDecimal, has nothing to do with 16 bit integers. Furthermore the limit was 65*3*55... whereas the max 16-bit unsigned integer is 65*5*35, so the digits don't even match up.
It's a cool hypothesis, and perhaps the person who hardcoded that number was even inspired by 2^16 - 1 in some way, but as the replies point out it doesn't really make much sense beyond an odd curiosity.
- Centigonal 4y agoI didn't catch the 65355 vs. 65535 thing. That just raises more questions...