Skip to content

Comment on On Endianness (2021)

Comments

A few weeks ago I read the original paper where the names big endian and little endian came from and was really surprised that it was published in 1980!

So, before then we didn't have a common way of describing this I guess. It's crazy to me if true.

Good paper BTW. Worth reading.

Because pretty much no machine in the universe used little-endian before Intel decided to save a cycle somewhere in the 8008 design, so there was no reason to have a way to refer to it. And even then, nobody paid much attention until IBM put an 8086 into the PC, rather than a Motorola 68X0, right about the time of the article you mention. It's been downhill ever since.

I’ve been writing a lot of MMIX lately and I really like big endian. It’s so much nicer to watch memory and registers change when ordered this way.

Multiple-precision arithmetic routines were almost always little-endian.

I agree with the sentiment but the RFC even mentions the PDP 11 as the first computer to claim being little endian. I wonder if the ascent of C and Unix at that time also contributed to it.

    The root of the conflict lies much deeper than that.  It is the question
    of  which  bit  should  travel first, the bit from the little end of the
    word, or the bit from the big end of the  word?  The  followers  of  the
    former  approach are called the Little-Endians, and the followers of the
    latter are called the Big-Endians.  The details of the holy war  between
    the  Little-Endians  and  the  Big-Endians  are  documented  in  [6] and
    described, in brief, in the Appendix. I recommend that you  read  it  at
    this point.
* Danny Cohen, IEN 137 (1 April 1980), https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.