From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2007 - 21:45:21 CDT
On Jun 22, 2007, at 10:28 PM, George W Gerrity wrote:
[...]
>
> You miss the point entirely.
You're right. With this new explanation, I understand better what
you were trying to say, and I agree with you more, although not
completely.
[...]
> The point is that there is ... absolutely no future for (human-
> readable) representations in bases larger than 16 ... We are not
> interested in how they are represented internally (usually binary,
> even when the maths engine uses base 4 or even mixed bases), but
> how to represent such numbers for transfer between humans audibly,
> or visually on some physical material. Most computer people do
> finally get used to manipulating base 16 in their heads (for
> instance, to turn it into a decimal number that is meaningful to
> humans, or to do some simple addition or subtraction), but base 64?
> Base 26? How absurd!
[...]
I agree that 64 is absurd. I'm not sure about 26; that's borderline
on the number of symbols. I can deal with base 16 pretty well in my
head, as I expect that you probably can too, thanks to years of use.
I suspect that if I had been dealing with base 26 for as many years
as I have base 16, I'd probably be pretty good at it too. I would
guess that experienced Amiga developers, in their heyday, could sling
base 32 pretty well (at least, if it was as common as I believe it was).
Best,
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser marnen@marnen.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 22 2007 - 21:50:40 CDT