3 ms·
When I hear “64-bit” without any additional context, I absolutely think x86-64. ARM64 devices aren’t really that widespread in people’s mindshare, I would wager
by selfhoster11 2y ago
When I hear “64-bit” without any additional context, I absolutely think x86-64. ARM64 devices aren’t really that widespread in people’s mindshare, I would wager.
- johnklos 2y agoThat doesn't mean that's universal, particularly for those of us who remember 64 bit CPUs before x86-64. I'd even wager that very young people stopped associating it with x86 at all since all x86 CPUs, save some Intel holdouts, have been 64 bits for at least the last fifteen years.
- ksec 2y agoIt is just the context, those of us who came all the way from 16bit 80286, 32bit 80386 to 64bit will read the 64bit a little differently. Especially in today's world. Some level of Hardware understanding used to be a requirement. Now a days most developers grown up with abstractions they dont have to care about any of these any more.
- bcrl 2y agoOh, how I do not miss having to attribute pointers with near and far!
- hulitu 2y agoAs the parent poster said: > Alpha, UltraSPARC, MIPS and even Power had 64 bit long before the 2001 introduction of the Itanic. And even PA-RISC had 64 bits. Itanium was just a processor trying to disrupt the RISC market.