On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:24:04 +0200 koneu <kone...@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 <d...@frign.de>
