From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <109frqo$2n3qo$2@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 8/29/2025 9:21 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <108tbk2$29q30$2@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 8/29/2025 5:38 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> 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:   
   >>>>>>> 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").   
   >>>   
   >>> That was also Lawrence's guess.   
   >>   
   >> I plonked that guy ages ago, so I don't see his responses.  I   
   >> expect he knows even less about Delphi than   
   >>   
   >>> But the hypothesis that they wanted to follow   
   >>> C/C++ is obviously not true.   
   >>   
   >> You'll need to qualify that statement more before its veracity   
   >> is even within reach of being ascertained.   
   >>   
   >> Obviously they were not following C and C++ in the sense that   
   >> the syntax (and much of the semantics) are based on Pascal, not   
   >> C.  Clearly they wanted things like fundamental integral types   
   >> to line up with existing C code for calls across an FFI   
   >> boundary.  One merely need look up the history of the language   
   >> to see that.   
   >   
   >The quotes I included was not kept just make the post longer,   
   >but because the comment related to then content in them.   
      
   Your suggestion was that concerns about compatibility with C   
   types did not influence the design of Delphi.  That is   
   manifestly wrong.   
      
   >This is about naming of integer types.   
      
   And their sizes.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)