From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <108t0d4$249vm$11@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 8/29/2025 9:17 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <108g8kk$33isk$1@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 8/24/2025 7:27 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> In article <108dlq4$2fi6h$4@dont-email.me>,   
   >>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/19/2025 1:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>>>> In article <10823ei$3pb8v$3@dont-email.me>,   
   >>>>>> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Whether we follow tradition and call them integer and cardinal   
   >>>>>>> or more modern style and call them int and uint is less important.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I would argue that, at this point, there's little need for a   
   >>>>>> generic "int" type anymore, and that types representing integers   
   >>>>>> as understood by the machine should explicitly include both   
   >>>>>> signedness and width.  An exception may be something like,   
   >>>>>> `size_t`, which is platform-dependent, but when transferred   
   >>>>>> externally should be given an explicit size.  A lot of the   
   >>>>>> guesswork and folklore that goes into understanding the   
   >>>>>> semantics of those things just disappears when you're explicit.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The integer types should have well defined width.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And they could also be called int32 and uint32.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That seems to be in fashion in low level languages   
   >>>>> competing with C.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Many higher level languages just define that int is 32 bit,   
   >>>>> but don't show it in the name.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If by "many higher level languages" you mean languages in the   
   >>>> JVM and CLR ecosystem, then sure, I guess so.  But it's not   
   >>>> universal, and I don't see how it's an improvement.   
   >>>   
   >>> That are two huge group of languages with a pretty big   
   >>> market share in business applications.   
   >>   
   >> Market share is not the same as influence, and while the JVM/CLR   
   >> languages _do_ have a lot of users, that does not imply that all   
   >> are good languages.  In fact, only a handful of languages in   
   >> each family have any significant adoption, and I don't think PL   
   >> designers are mining them for much inspiration these days.   
   >>   
   >> Again, not universal, nor really an improvement over just using   
   >> explicitly sized types.   
   >   
   >It is a huge domain that are totally dominated by two approaches:   
   >[snip]   
      
   So?  You referred to "many higher level languages".  That is   
   qualitatively different than "a small number of languages with a   
   huge share of the market."   
      
   >>> Delphi provide both flavors. shortint/smallint/integer   
   >>> and int8/int16/int32, byte/word/cardinal and   
   >>> uint8/uint16/uint32. I believe the first are the most   
   >>> widely used.   
   >>   
   >> The older names feel like they're very much looking backwards in   
   >> time.   
   >   
   >Developers tend to like what they know.   
   >   
   >>> (64 bit is just int64 and uint64, because somehow they   
   >>> fucked up longint and made it 32 bit on 32 bit and 64 bit   
   >>> Windows but 64 bit on 64 bit *nix)   
   >>   
   >> I'd blame C for that.   
   >   
   >Delphi is not C.   
      
   Obviously.   
      
   But it would be foolish to assume that they weren't influenced   
   by matters of compatibility with C (or more specifically C++)   
   here, particularly given the history of Delphi as a language.   
      
   Even the name gives it away ("longint").   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)