• uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Every single one has the exact same address; they have significance order, but that’s entirely orthogonal to memory.

    We are talking about transferring data, not storing it. For example SPI allows both for LSb-first and MSb-first. In date digit-number-date is like bit-byte-word.

    • linja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Right, and in data transfer every byte can be placed in an absolute order relative to every other. And the digits within the respective fields are already big-endian (most significant digit first), so making the fields within the whole date little-endian is mixed-endian.

      I have iterated this several times, so I worry there’s a fundamental miscommunication happening here.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        big-endian (most significant byte or in our case number first).

        Digit in base2 is bit. Endianess is byte order, not bit order. MSb is bit order.

        • linja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ok, I think I see the problem. To me, MSb (Most Significant bit) isn’t an ordering at all, just a label that one particular bit has. To specify an ordering, you’d also need to say whether that bit comes first or last. This concept doesn’t exist in computer memory because, as previously mentioned, bits in a byte aren’t ordered in memory. I was thinking of the individual digits in a field (each Y in YYYY) as separate bytes in a word, so endianness order makes sense to think about; separate fields in this analogy were contiguous like struct fields. I think my mental model is sensible, since ISO 8601 is fundamentally a sequence of characters, which are all in an absolute order.