On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:24:04 +0200
koneu <koneu93_AT_googlemail.com> wrote:
> Pathetic. Why would you do that to save at most 16 bytes?
> Reasons against it:
> 0. This implementation is way cooler.
Great point.
> 1. Storage is cheap.
CPU-cycles are cheap. Memory is cheap. Network is cheap, ...
Still, neglecting these areas adds up and slows down the whole system
noticeably.
> 2. Compression.
This may be valid for network-transmission, but would just be a way
around the issue.
> If anything, I would store the numbers as unsigned 64 bit LSB and change the read/write functions for MSB architectures.
Don't get me started with endianness...
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Wed Jul 16 2014 - 14:48:01 CEST