Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

``Octect'' vs. ``Byte''

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 3:10

Why do some autists get so worked up over the difference between the two terms? They mean the same fucking thing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 3:17

i think in ancient history days a "byte" may not have been exactly 8 bits across systems

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 3:18

>>2
oh yeah, back in the old days when lisp wasn't a shit tier language

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 3:33

It's ``Octet'', not ``Octect''.

And by the way: I also use the term nibble...

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 4:25

cocktet

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 5:23

>>5
YOU'RE SO FUCKING CLEVER

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 5:38

>>1
Clever trolling OP. You really know what riles 'em up.
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING. BOTH HAVE COMPLETELY SEPARATE DEFINITIONS.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 5:58

>>6
wanna nibble on my cocktet?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:01

>>4
So I made a typo, big fucking deal. No need to get all autistic about it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:05

Bytes are 8 bit wide, get over it you fucking faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:08

>>10
So is your mom.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:10

What is a word?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:15

>>12
Machine-dependant.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:46

>>12
a miserable little pile of letters

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 6:57

>>7
Yeah, sure. Also, the correct terms for data volume is kibioctets, mebioctets and so on.

Also, I went to Wikipedia and lold at:

It is used primarily in its decadic fraction, the decibel (dB), for signal strength and sound pressure level measurements, while a unit for one tenth of a byte, i.e. the decibyte, is never used.[citation needed]

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 7:27

>>15
What?

Octet: 8 bits
Byte: Smallest addressable section of memory

By the way, does anyone if a char, int and long are always a byte, word and dword respectively. If so, why weren't they named as such?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 7:35

>>16
Only char is guaranteed to be a byte.
Short and int are guaranteed to be at least 16-bits, and long is guaranteed to be at least 32-bits. Also, it is guaranteed that ((sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int)) && (sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long))).

Name: >>17 2011-08-25 7:38

Also, char is guaranteed to be at least 8-bits and you can get its exact length with the CHAR_BIT macro from limits.h.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 8:03

>>16
Yeah, yeah, sure, there's a lot of imaginary architectures with non-8-bit bytes, don't throw an autistic tantrum please.

My point is that you guys don't go far enough. When you measure amount of information all units of measure should derive from the number of bits. Because information is measured in bits, not in "smallest addressable sections of memory".

So it is incorrect to say that some file size is 600 mebibytes, because it leaves undefined the actual number of bits in it. A 600 mebioctet file would take approximately 685 mebibytes on a 7-byte system. THIS IS WRONG.

So I urge all autismal asspies to head to Wikipedia and start a grassroots movement for deprecation of terms kibibyte, mebibyte, gibibyte, and so on, in favour of kibioctet, mebioctet, gibioctet, and so on. There should be no doubt that you will succeed, after all you did manage to force everyone to use these retarded prefixes in the first place. "Octet" at least doesn't sound like the Teletubbies' favourite brand of anal lubricants.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 8:36

>>19
There is nothing wrong with the current definitions. If a system was developed which, say, had 16 bit bytes they would become useful. Just now they are essentially synonymous.

It isn't nessecarily wrong to say a file is x bytes either, as long as you know the number of bits in a byte on the architecture the file was created.

Consider our hypothetical architecture again. To get octets of a file created on our current architectures you would probably do:
char ch = getchar();
octet1 = (ch >> 0) & 0xFF
octet2 = (ch >> 8) & 0xFF
Yes, I know this system does not exist.

I've never heard kibi, mebi, or gibi as prefixes before. They are indeed retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 9:00

>>20
What's bad about that is that sizeof(char) still will be 1.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 9:13

>>19
don't throw an autistic tantrum please.

[snip autistic tantrum]

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 9:19

>>21
How is that a bad thing? char is still 1 byte, it's just that the size of a byte has changed.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 9:26

>>21
But CHAR_BIT would be 16. I still don't see an issue.

We've managed just fine with different endianess, haven't we?

Likely an 8-bit byte file format would become standard if a non-8-bit byte architecture was to become popular, at least until that number of bits took a considerabe amount of market share.

The byte type being called char in C is a misnomer. Far better if the types were byte, word, dword, qword. Then you could write
word int = 4;
byte string[15];
and not have your intent clouded behind opague type names.
Though perhaps I am wrong on this. I don't know nearly enough of the details or the mindset of the standardising comittee.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 10:49

>>20
It isn't nessecarily wrong to say a file is x bytes either, as long as you know the number of bits in a byte on the architecture the file was created.
No, on the architecture some particular copy of it is currently stored. Because obviously it would have to be re-encoded if you move it to another architecture, which would change its size.

Measuring file size in bytes is just as wrong as measuring file size in sectors, from the autist's viewpoint. It's not a property of the file, but only on one particular incarnation of it. So it is WRONG to call this value "file size".

Then, when you create other copies this number might change, and to know how it would change you'll need to translate the first pseudo-size to real size in bits, then translate back to the second pseudo-size. As opposed to using the real size all along, and translating it only once in those rare cases when you need to know the size in platform-depended units.

So if you are a proper, self-respecting autist, you simply can't stop at decrying the use of the word "byte" to mean "octet" in the extremely narrow class of programming-related situations. It is INCONSISTENT to demand everyone to loop to CHAR_BIT but sheepishly measure file sizes in mibibytes.

It's like putting on lipstick, eye shadow, and glittering leggings, heading to a gay bar, but then refusing to suck any cocks. It completely destroys your credibility, it means that you are not a real gay or autist, but only pretend to be one because it's hip.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:04

>>24
I don't know nearly enough of the details or the mindset of the standardising comittee.
Their mindset was altered by something called LSD.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-25 11:25

>>17
Short and int are guaranteed to be at least 16-bits, and long is guaranteed to be at least 32-bits.

Close, but no cigar. Reread the standard again. And when you do, pay much closer attention this time. BTW, I'm still not granting your monkey ass the first technical interview.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:29

>>25
I wouldn't say measuring it in bytes is wrong. To meaningfully deserialize it on a machine with different byte size, the encoded byte size would still have to be known. So it makes sense you would need either a (file size in bytes, byte size in bits) or (file size in bits, byte size in bits) pair. Either can be derived from the other two.

It still "isn't nessecarily wrong to say a file is x bytes either, as long as you know the number of bits in a byte on the architecture the file was created." The point I was trying to make is, it currently makes no difference. For all intents and purposes, right now a byte is an octet.

I appreciate where you're coming from, trying to put it into it's simplest and most intuitive form. I'm arguing the opposite to show you that it isn't wrong either.

This is remarkably similar to the Pi/Tau debate.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!27NV2wuwodKpVBj 2011-08-25 11:35

>>25
Measuring file size in bytes is just as wrong as measuring file size in sectors, from the autist's viewpoint. It's not a property of the file

Cripes, I think you need to go read "The Design and Implementation of the 4.2 BSD Operating System" instead of acting like the stupid nowhere bitch that you reallly are.

It's like putting on lipstick, eye shadow, and glittering leggings, heading to a gay bar, but then refusing to suck any cocks. It completely destroys your credibility, it means that you are not a real gay or autist, but only pretend to be one because it's hip.

Go serve another customer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:38

>>25
Why is this site so obsessed with all things gay?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:40

>>30
Because 95% of the people here, who happen to be dudes, are either scared of women, or have been turned down by so many females that their only option was to turn to all things gay.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:40

>>30
I don't know.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 11:50

>>28
So it makes sense you would need either a (file size in bytes, byte size in bits) or (file size in bits, byte size in bits) pair.
No, I would actually need a triplet (their byte size in bits, their file size in bytes, my byte size in bits). This is unscientific and ultimately destructive. Replacing "byte" with "octet" immediately solves the problem, even if the "smallest addressable sections of memory" is not 8 bits on any or both of our machines.

Which by the way happens waaay more often than you think, in fact x86 is one of the few processor families which can do singe byte reads/writes, not to mention unaligned reads/writes, and even it gradually goes away from it (x86-64 demands stack pointer to be 8-byte aligned, SSE demands 16-byte aligned data and don't provide any single-byte manipulation instructions). Somehow no one uses a different byte size on those other architectures.

For all intents and purposes, right now a byte is an octet.
Then what you are doing here, in this discussion, on this board?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 12:03

>right now a byte is an octet.
However in TROLLGOL this is not the case, due backward comp. with legacy systems

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 12:23

>>31
The other 5% are trannies and asexuals?

Also, fuck you you fucking autists. Byte=octet and that's final. fuck your shitty microcontrollers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 14:30

>>35
Tell it to the ANSI C Standard.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 14:39

>>36
Fuck off and die you little cocksucking queer, Zhivago.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 14:55

>>37
ZHIVAGO THREAD

<Zhivago> No. Eclipse can ruin an evening on any planet.
<michaelis> Maybe so. But you have to admit that many people out there depend on it.
<Zhivago> Many people depended on beating black people to death.
<Zhivago> That doesn't make it right.
<michaelis> No, they think they did. That's a big difference.
<Zhivago> michaelis: No. They did. It was an integral part of the economy.
<michaelis> Zhivago: I'll be very interested in learning more on that subject another day. Good evening for now.
* michaelis has quit (Quit: Leaving)

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 16:54

Manual memory management proponents love caressing and nibbling on every cocktet they allocate.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 18:21

nipples

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 18:52

Zhivago is the most informative person ever. There is nothing Zhivago cannot explain.
            o                                            
                 O       /`-.__                          
                        /  \.'^|                         
           o           T    l  *                         
                      _|-..-|_                           
               O    (^ '----' `)     I HELP THE MENTALLY RETARDED PEOPLE
                     `\-....-/^      BECOME LESS STUPID WITH ZHIVAGO!
           O       o  ) "/ " (      /                    
                     _( (-)  )_                          
                 O  /\ )    (  /\                        
                   /  \(    ) |  \                       
               o  o    \)  ( /    \                      
                 /     |(  )|      \                     
                /    o \ \( /       \                    
          __.--'   O    \_ /   .._   \                   
         //|)\      ,   (_)   /(((\^)'\                  
            |       | O         )  `  |                  
            |      / o___      /      /                  
           /  _.-''^^__O_^^''-._     /                   
         .'  /  -''^^    ^^''-  \--'^                    
       .'   .`.  `'''----'''^  .`. \                     
     .'    /   `'--..____..--'^   \ \                    
    /  _.-/                        \ \                   
.::'_/^   |                        |  `.                 
       .-'|                        |    `-.              
 _.--'`   \                        /       `-.           
/          \                      /           `-._       
`'---..__   `.                  .`_.._   __       \      
         ``'''`.              .'##C   `'^  `''---'^      
                `-..______..-'

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 19:02

>>41
He can't explain what sex feels like.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 20:20

>>42
He could, if he knew what it feels like.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 20:24

>>42
If you're so sure, then go into ##C and ask him!

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 20:26

>>44
And reveal my secret identity?  No, you do it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 21:02

Now imagine if Zhivago was a Lisper instead of a C-er. I just can't imagine the faggotry.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 21:03

>>OP
Nice arguments here. You have really made your point, good work.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 21:41

>>46
he doesn't realize that Zhivago is a top lisp hacker
laughinggirls.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 22:08

>>48
Go back to /g/.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 22:40

>>49
Bo gack go /t/.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-26 3:29

>>46
lol you obviously don't even know who he is

GOOGLE HIS LEGACY

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-26 5:55

>>48
he doesn't realize that Zhivago is a top lisp hacker
He looks more like a bottom for me.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-26 15:53

>>52
Oh Zhivago-sama, you are so uke~ -A-

Name: 43 here 2011-08-26 22:23

I am tsundere for Zhivago

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-26 22:40

>>52-54
Who is Zhivago?
I realize there is a popular fictional character named Dr. Zhivago but that's probably not what I'm looking for.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-26 23:09

>>55
it's a prominent faggot in freenode's ##C

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-27 5:09

>>56
Also, Operator on #lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-28 20:04

Also, a level 99 Scientist on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/user/Zhivago

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 18:23

>>4
NIBBLES ARE 4 BITS YOU CUNT

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 19:26

A byte is ANY number of bits (1 or more, but 8 or more in C and C++). An octet is always 8 bits. On the PDP-10, bytes are usually 6 or 9 bits (but can be any number from 1 to 36), and a word is 36 bits. The ideal computer for today would use 21-bit bytes, capable of storing any Unicode code point as a single byte and eliminating all of the problems associated with wide characters and surrogate pairs. An int on such an architecture would be 42 bits, the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 19:47

>>60
bit/10

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 21:52

>>60
kill yourself faggot. a byte is always 8 bits.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 22:14

>>62
bring it to ##C, motherfucker

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 22:52

>>63
Last time I was there, Zhivago caressed my butt. Not going anywhere close to that place ever again, buddy.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 23:24

>>63
fuck you fagstorm

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 23:24

check my dubs

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-29 23:37

>>65-66
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 2:32

>>67
go fuck an autistic nigger

Name: chunky dee 2011-08-30 2:50

>>68
I find your statement quite offensive. Seening how my brotherr is both autistic and african american, and i would appreciate it deeply, if you reframed from using such volger language thank you.
peace bi-atch

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:01

>>68
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:05

>>69-70
fuck yourself autistic nigger faggot shitstain

Name: chunky dee 2011-08-30 3:10

>>71
your mother

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:20

>>72 see >>71 b/c i dont feel like repeating myself

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:24

>>73
werd son

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:28

>>71
Now, Poopdicknuts-san, I know you know better than to leave the tard zoo after hours.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:33

>>75 >>71
ouch

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:49

>>75-76
aren't you just clever, FAGSTORM

Name: chunky dee 2011-08-30 3:53

they shouldve never gave you niggers money

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:55

>>78
back to /b/!

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 3:56

>>79
Back to ``/d/''!

Name: chunky dee 2011-08-30 4:00

chunkee dezzee in the hizzle

Name: chunky dee 2011-08-30 4:05

chunkee dezzee in the hizzle

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 5:52

>>60
The ideal computer for today would use 21-bit bytes, capable of storing any Unicode code point as a single byte and eliminating all of the problems associated with wide characters and surrogate pairs.
1. Not all by far, you'll still have combining characters and normalizations.

2. Text processing is the lowliest form of computing.

Name: n3n7i 2011-08-30 6:37

We should be using/building ternary+ computers =/

Current computers are running like 2,500,000,000 Hz Baud but only send One Bit per Signal.... Base 16 ? == 4 bps == 10 GHz instead of 2.5 ?? Base 256 == 8bps == 20 GHz ??

It probably wouldn't scale like that exactly... but in theory//approx?
Memory could scale too? Eg. Store eight bits in the location of one?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 7:14

>>84
What the fuck am I reading?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 7:18

>>84
0/10

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 8:36

>>84
You are a motherfucking retard who does not know the English Language. Return to your bridge and put a rest on your fleas, It'll be good.

Or stop disguising as a retard, ``asshole''.

0/10

Name: n3n7i 2011-08-30 9:11

Do you not understand engrish?

Name: n3n7i 2011-08-30 9:13

Or stop disguising as a retard, ``asshole''.
[87 Name: Anonymous : 2011-08-30 08:36 ]

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 9:15

>>87 You sound pretty mad, brother.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 9:16

>>88,89
Get lost.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 9:16

But a byte isn't the same as an octet! An octet has a precise meaning in computer science, while a byte has a meaning only within the context of an architecture with registers...

Name: n3n7i 2011-08-30 9:29

>>92 is cool, good answer for OP

also this...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 11:19

>>93,88,89
Get lost.

    Our mission at Next Limit Technologies is to provide cutting edge simulation technologies for a broad range of applications in Computer Graphics, Science and Engineering. Next Limit boasts a multidisciplinary team with expertise in physics, mathematics, computer graphics, engineering and visualization. The team shares a common vision which is the creation of new products that connect science, simulation and visualization using novel paradigms and innovative methodologies.

Next Limit was founded in 1998 and our corporate headquarters are in Madrid, Spain. We lead an ever growing team of the best professionals in the industry, including remote technical staff spanning Europe and the USA, as well as a client support office in Santa Monica, California.

Next Limit has gained a worldwide reputation for the quality and power of our software simulation tools. Our state-of-the-art simulation packages have been widely acclaimed and awarded. Our products include ``RealFlow`` (fluid and dynamics simulation for 3D visual effects), ``Maxwell Render`` (physically accurate light simulation and render engine) and ``XFlow`` (CFD software for engineering and scientific applications). All our products have been developed using proprietary technology and are available for multiple platforms and can connect seamlessly with most major applications in the DCC and CAD/CAE markets.

Our research and development at Next Limit continues to explore and improve simulation techniques, advanced mathematical models and programming methodologies. We are a fast-moving, dynamic company, always innovating and pushing the boundaries of research to reach the ``next limit``

Also, The Game.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-30 11:22

>>65-
Oh, how I weep for /prog/.
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -