Byte Ordering: On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace (1980)

Have a look at the date of the document... although the content is serious, the way it&#x27;s discussed might be a bit in the line of these: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;April_Fools&#x27;_Day_Request_for_Comments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;April_Fools&#x27;_Day_Request_for_C...</a>

Who needs CSS for justified text when you can just do it 1980-style monospaced justification? This makes me happy, and I have no idea why.

&gt; <i>Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.</i> —SKB

To this day I think that article mixed up the terms, causing confusion ever since. &quot;Little-endian&quot; to me implies that the least significant byte of a word is at the end of a byte sequence, but it&#x27;s the other way round.<p>I understand that it&#x27;s from Gulliver&#x27;s Travels where it&#x27;s about which end to start breaking an egg from - but without knowing this you can easily end up getting this wrong.

While I prefer to crack my eggs from the little end, I insist on big-endian byte order. Sadly, modern CPUs are mostly made by barbarians (i.e. Little-Endians).

I actually did a writeup on this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technicalsourcery.net&#x2F;posts&#x2F;on-endianness&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technicalsourcery.net&#x2F;posts&#x2F;on-endianness&#x2F;</a><p>TLDR: Little endian is better for most data situations (and incidentally is a more natural ordering for humans), so it&#x27;s good that it won out in the end.

Silly aside: I didn&#x27;t read the book and was very confused for a long time since I assumed <i>end</i>ian meant the specified byte goes last.

I think most industry wire protocols are still big endian.

Lmao, this has raw actual-ANSI-control-code 000C &lt;control&gt; = FORM FEED (FF) in the text.