Re: Hexadecimal never again

From: Tex Texin (
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 12:02:43 EDT

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Hexadecimal never again"

    Jon Hanna wrote:
    > > From a practical standpoint, I think it is more likely that the base will
    > > change rather than the hex characters.
    > > After all, digits have been constant for a long time, but the base has
    > > changed. Initially it was binary, then it was octal, and now hex
    > > arithmetic is
    > > common.
    > No, first it was binary, then it was binary and now its binary. Different
    > human-readable formats have been (and continue to be) used to represent
    > this.
    > It seems more likely to me that we might switch to
    > > another base (32?
    > > 64?) as platforms expand, before we started adding redundant
    > > characters to hex
    > > arithmetic.
    > What human-readability advantages (the only reason we use hex) would base 32
    > or base 64 representations have over hex? They aren't matched by a nice
    > number of bits for most systems;

    Only density. You are right 256 would be a more convenient base.
    Fortunately with Unicode ransacking alphabets is easy!

    Jon I was mostly being tongue in cheek and contrasting that relative to
    needing new hex digits, a base change was more likely. However, I wasn't
    saying that a base change is likely.

    the reason for using hex rather than octal
    > is that 2 hex digits can exactly represent the range of a octet (the most
    > common size of bytes these days) and by extension of any word composed of an
    > integral number of octets. The next base to have that quality is base 256,
    > which would require us to ransack a few different alphabets and then maybe
    > create a few symbols in order for us to represent it.

    Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898
    Xen Master                
    Making e-Business Work Around the World

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 20 2003 - 13:01:11 EDT