![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I'm for removing this whole section. Reasons:
-- A D Monroe III ( talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The telephone network has always sent the most significant part first, the area code; doing so allows routing to begin while a telephone number is still being keyed or dialed." However a telephone number is not an integer, and in particular, not a 32-bit or 64-bit integer, just a sequence of digits, which can be seen as a character string. So, this is not related to endianness and IMHO, this example should be removed. – Vincent Lefèvre ( talk) 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not able to agree with the statement "The IBM 1400 series has characteristics of ... little- ...-endian." The relevant differences between the 14xx (type "A") and later big-endian machines (type "B"), e.g. system /360, are:
Besides these differences the algorithm for addition is the same, namely of type big-endian as we learnt it in school: starting with the one's position (the least significant digit) and working addresswise downward to the left to the most significant digit (while propagating the
carries).
If we program such an addition in COBOL or FORTRAN, we have one name, say "AUGEND", for the field to be added to (the so-called
augend). On both types of machines, A and B, the symbol AUGEND stands for the whole field and can be identified with its byte address in memory. Let us assume that the length of the field AUGEND is 4 bytes, so that its least significant byte has the address AUGEND+3. On both systems, A and B, we write AUGEND = AUGEND + 157
for adding 157 to AUGEND.
This backing up from the address designating the field to the byte where the addition starts by the COBOL- or FORTRAN-compilers on machine A can hardly be classified as "little-endian". -- Nomen4Omen ( talk) 14:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Suggest that there is way too much ancillary information about the derivation of Endianness and propose to reduce it to the essentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPES ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I'm for removing this whole section. Reasons:
-- A D Monroe III ( talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "The telephone network has always sent the most significant part first, the area code; doing so allows routing to begin while a telephone number is still being keyed or dialed." However a telephone number is not an integer, and in particular, not a 32-bit or 64-bit integer, just a sequence of digits, which can be seen as a character string. So, this is not related to endianness and IMHO, this example should be removed. – Vincent Lefèvre ( talk) 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not able to agree with the statement "The IBM 1400 series has characteristics of ... little- ...-endian." The relevant differences between the 14xx (type "A") and later big-endian machines (type "B"), e.g. system /360, are:
Besides these differences the algorithm for addition is the same, namely of type big-endian as we learnt it in school: starting with the one's position (the least significant digit) and working addresswise downward to the left to the most significant digit (while propagating the
carries).
If we program such an addition in COBOL or FORTRAN, we have one name, say "AUGEND", for the field to be added to (the so-called
augend). On both types of machines, A and B, the symbol AUGEND stands for the whole field and can be identified with its byte address in memory. Let us assume that the length of the field AUGEND is 4 bytes, so that its least significant byte has the address AUGEND+3. On both systems, A and B, we write AUGEND = AUGEND + 157
for adding 157 to AUGEND.
This backing up from the address designating the field to the byte where the addition starts by the COBOL- or FORTRAN-compilers on machine A can hardly be classified as "little-endian". -- Nomen4Omen ( talk) 14:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Suggest that there is way too much ancillary information about the derivation of Endianness and propose to reduce it to the essentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPES ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)