As I mentioned in my very first post it is based on what humans want out of computing. We have ALWAYS wanted to do arithmetic with large numbers and with fracti

As I mentioned in my very first post it is based on what humans want out of computing. We have ALWAYS wanted to do arithmetic with large numbers and with fractional values. We have wanted to compute trigonometric functions since antiquity. We wanted human computers to do all these things and more in the past so why shouldn’t we want the same of automatic computers now? What we want out of computing is constantly evolving but in most cases the new things boil down to solving the same old set of basic problems. A large portion of modern cryptography is simply arithmetic with large numbers for instance. An 8-bit machine can be used to solve these problems but often inefficiently or awkwardly, which is not the point of automatic computing, hence the impracticality of that word size in a general purpose computer. Since word-size mostly determines the magnitude and precision with which we may conveniently represent a quantity it is pertinent that we consider what scales we might be expected to work at. There are 13 orders of magnitude (~43 binary orders) between a pauper with a single dollar and the nominal GDP of the USA. It is therefore unlikely your adding machine will need more than that many columns. There are 61 orders of magnitude (~203 binary orders) between the diameter of the observable universe and a Planck length. Those are the opposite ends of two extremes and we could reason that common calculations would involve a more Earthly scale. We should also consider the other natural quantities but the point is that in this world we must expect to operate at scales which have been determined by economic or natural forces. A machine that doesn’t acknowledge this in its design is not practical. Continually applying one’s reason in this way we can arrive at a sensible range of scales with good generality. These are the principles which should guide us when determining a practical word length. Like considerations have guided the design of all our calculating tools. What good would an abacus be if it had so few rods as to make common mercantile calculations more awkward? Perhaps it seems less arbitrary now. Many aspects of the universe appear continuous so it is natural we would need to do calculations involving numbers with fractional parts (rationals are a useful abstraction for many things besides). We could use fixed-point arithmetic but we have found that floating point is generally more efficient for most applications. A general purpose computer should have a floating point unit. Even Zuse’s Versuchsmodell 1 had one in 1938. A 16-bit float is useful in some applications, but a 32-bit or higher floating point is what scientists and engineers have always asked for in their computers. If you want to talk about market success the fact that computers across many different eras, technologies and sizes with 32/36 to 60/64 bit word sizes have existed and continue to exist despite our evolving computing needs, suggests some level of generality which a smaller word size does not provide. The short career of 8-bit words in (semi) general purpose computing counts against it more than anything. It is even being displaced in its traditional avenues. > the end-user increasingly doesn't own their computing experience. While 8-bit and 16-bit computing may not meet your arbitrary definition of sufficiency, it still provides an avenue for people to access, understand, and control their computing. What does this have to do with word-size? Why even bother mentioning this? You seem to endlessly conflate larger word-sizes with “modern computing” and smaller word-sizes with specific past implementations or genres of computers. Don’t bother arguing the merits of a smaller word-size by appealing to unrelated virtues or ills. By the way Wirth was not against the idea of small computers, he just though it was being done badly so he designed his own. People have always thought that computing could be done better, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone here. > If it wasn't good enough for Wirth, so what? It means that there are people with a far better sense for what is acceptable and unacceptable in computing than you.