> To reinterpret a 64-bit number as 32-bit in BE, you have to add 4 bytes to your pointer. In LE, the pointer doesn't change.
But one shouldn't do that very often: those are two different types. The slight cost of adding a pointer is negligible.
> Just about any arithmetic operation on integers (e.g. adding) starts from the least-significant bits and moves up. It's nice if that can mean iterating forward from the start instead of backwards from the end, e.g. when implementing a "bignum" library.
-- is a thing, just as ++ is.
> There's really no good argument for big-endian encoding except that it's the ordering that we humans use in writing.
That's like saying, 'there's really no good argument for pumping nitrogen-oxygen mixes into space stations except that it's the mixture we humans use to breathe.'
It's simplicity itself for a computer to do big-endian arithmetic; it's horrible pain for a human being who has to read a little-endian listing. A computer can be made to do the right thing. Who is the master: the computer or the man?
That line of argument suggests you'd be happier with a human-readable format like JSON. Which is another eternal flamewar that we aren't likely to resolve here. Needless to say I like binary formats. :)
Floating point isn't legible either, nor are are bitfields, opcodes, instruction formats, etc. That's why we use computers to do the 'right thing' and format the data if we need to read it.
I don't have a preference for either one, but using little-endian when most/every processor you will be targeting supports it makes more sense than using big-endian + extra work on x86 just so you can read it with less effort in a memory dump.
But one shouldn't do that very often: those are two different types. The slight cost of adding a pointer is negligible.
> Just about any arithmetic operation on integers (e.g. adding) starts from the least-significant bits and moves up. It's nice if that can mean iterating forward from the start instead of backwards from the end, e.g. when implementing a "bignum" library.
-- is a thing, just as ++ is.
> There's really no good argument for big-endian encoding except that it's the ordering that we humans use in writing.
That's like saying, 'there's really no good argument for pumping nitrogen-oxygen mixes into space stations except that it's the mixture we humans use to breathe.'
It's simplicity itself for a computer to do big-endian arithmetic; it's horrible pain for a human being who has to read a little-endian listing. A computer can be made to do the right thing. Who is the master: the computer or the man?